Parziale v. HP, Inc.

Background

John Parziale alleged that HP used a remote firmware update on or around April 12, 2019, affecting his two HP printers and other models. He alleged that the update prevented the printers from functioning with certain non-HP and remanufactured ink cartridges unless a cartridge with an original HP chip was inserted. He claimed that he bought the printers partly because they could use less expensive third-party cartridges, and that the update reduced the printers’ value and made cartridges he already owned useless.

Parziale sought to represent a nationwide class and a Florida subclass. In the second amended complaint, he asserted a claim under the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act, a claim under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, and a trespass-to-chattels claim, which is a claim for unauthorized interference with personal property.

Materials Considered

On a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), the court generally considers the complaint and accepts well-pleaded factual allegations as true. The court declined to consider photographs of the printer box because they contradicted factual allegations in the complaint and created a disputed factual issue. The court took judicial notice of an archived version of HP’s online store page because Parziale referred to it, relied on it, and its authenticity was not reasonably disputed. The court declined to consider an HP support page because Parziale alleged that he did not see or rely on it when purchasing the printers.

Florida Consumer-Protection Claim

The court held that Parziale adequately alleged substantial consumer injury and adequately alleged that the injury outweighed any benefits to consumers. But the court ruled that he could reasonably have avoided the injury. The online store page warned that the printer was intended for cartridges using an HP original chip, that cartridges using a non-HP chip might not work, and that cartridges working at the time might not work in the future. The court concluded that this warning allowed a reasonable consumer to anticipate the possible incompatibility and avoid it by buying a different printer or not buying non-HP cartridges.

The court rejected Parziale’s argument that the warning did not cover refilled cartridges. It relied on his allegations that the update affected third-party and remanufactured cartridge chips and on his distinction between original HP cartridges and refilled HP cartridges. The court therefore granted HP’s motion to dismiss the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act claim.

Computer Fraud and Abuse Act Claim

Parziale alleged that HP knowingly transmitted the firmware update and intentionally damaged protected computers by changing the printers’ functionality. The court had previously found those allegations sufficient, but it ruled that the second amended complaint’s allegations about reliance on the store page changed the result.

The court held that the warning notified Parziale that non-HP cartridges might become incompatible. Because the alleged loss of printer functionality and value resulted from that warned-of possibility, the court found that Parziale did not adequately allege damage caused “without authorization,” as required by the provision of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act he invoked. The court granted HP’s motion to dismiss that claim.

Trespass-to-Chattels Claim

The court explained that a digital trespass claim requires intentional, unauthorized interference with a possessory interest in a computer system that causes damage. For the same reasons stated for the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act claim, the court ruled that HP had not acted without authorization because the store-page warning gave notice of HP’s ability to interfere with the printer’s compatibility with non-HP cartridges. The court granted HP’s motion to dismiss the trespass-to-chattels claim.

Leave to Amend and Disposition

The court concluded that further amendment would be futile. Parziale had already had two opportunities to amend, and his claims remained undermined by the store-page warning. The court also stated that he could not amend the complaint by contradicting his prior allegation that he relied on the store page.

Judge Davila granted HP’s motion to dismiss in full. The court dismissed Parziale’s claims without leave to amend and stated in its conclusion that the claims were dismissed with prejudice. It vacated the pretrial deadlines and hearing dates and directed the Clerk to close the file.