So v. HP, Inc.

Background

Henry So and Daniel Dyke alleged that HP remotely sent firmware updates to HP printers that made third-party ink and toner cartridges incompatible with the printers. They also alleged that HP printers recorded information about consumers’ printing habits and transmitted it to HP without the consumers’ knowledge or consent. The plaintiffs asserted claims under the federal Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, California’s computer-access statute, California consumer-protection laws, California fraud law, and Florida’s consumer-protection law. They sought to represent a nationwide class and several state-based subclasses.

So alleged that he bought two HP printers in California and that one OfficeJet Pro 6978 stopped working after a December 2021 firmware update. He then bought replacement HP cartridges. Dyke alleged that his OfficeJet Pro 6978 stopped working after he inserted a third-party cartridge and that he later updated the printer’s firmware while troubleshooting.

Judicial Notice

HP asked the court to consider three archived webpages and the packaging for the OfficeJet Pro 6978. The court granted judicial notice of the documents but declined to use them to resolve disputed facts at the motion-to-dismiss stage. In particular, the court would not use the printer box or webpages to contradict the plaintiffs’ allegations about what information they saw before purchasing their printers.

Standing Rulings

The court held that Dyke could not assert California-law claims because the opinion states that he resides in and was injured in Florida. The court therefore granted without leave to amend HP’s motion to dismiss Counts 3 through 8 to the extent Dyke brought them under California law.

The court also held that the plaintiffs had not alleged enough facts to establish standing for printers other than the OfficeJet Pro 6978. The motion to dismiss claims concerning other printers for lack of standing was granted without leave to amend.

Claims Based on Misrepresentations or Omissions

For So, the court held that the printer’s “supply problem” message was not a false statement because the third-party cartridge did not work. The court therefore granted without leave to amend HP’s motion to dismiss So’s fraud-based claims to the extent they relied on an affirmative misrepresentation. The court denied the motion as to claims based on HP’s alleged omission of information about future firmware updates that would make third-party cartridges incompatible. The court found that So adequately alleged that this issue was central to the printer’s function because the printer stopped working until he obtained HP cartridges.

For Dyke, the court similarly held that the error message accurately stated that non-HP cartridges had been detected. It granted without leave to amend HP’s motion to dismiss Dyke’s fraud-based claims based on an affirmative misrepresentation. The court denied the motion as to Dyke’s omission-based claims, applying reasoning similar to its analysis of So’s claims.

Computer-Related Claims

The court denied HP’s motion to dismiss the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act and California computer-access claims on the theory that the plaintiffs had notice of HP’s printer-authentication procedures. At the pleading stage, the court would not assume that the plaintiffs had seen the specific marketing materials identified by HP.

The court dismissed Dyke’s Computer Fraud and Abuse Act claims under 18 U.S.C. §§ 1030(a)(2)(C) and 1030(a)(5)(A), and his California computer-access claims under California Penal Code § 502(c)(2) through (5), with leave to amend. The court found that the amended complaint did not clearly identify which problems began only after the firmware update, and therefore did not adequately allege the required damage or loss caused by the update.

The court denied HP’s motion to dismiss the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act claim for failure to allege the required statutory damages. It held that the plaintiffs adequately alleged damages for purposes of the motion, including So’s allegations concerning the value of a third-party cartridge and the reduced value of his printer, and their theory that class members’ damages could be aggregated.

Unfair-Competition Claim and Final Order

The court denied HP’s motion to dismiss So’s California Unfair Competition Law claim under the unlawful-practices theory because HP had not shown that dismissal of all related claims required dismissal of that claim. The final order labels this as Count 4, although the opinion’s preceding discussion identifies the unlawful-practices claim as Count 3.

The court ordered the plaintiffs to file an amended complaint within 30 days. It stated that failure to meet the deadline or cure the identified deficiencies would result in dismissal of the deficient claims with prejudice, and that any amendments could not exceed the scope allowed by the order. Judge Beth Labson Freeman signed the order.