California Federal Court Grants Summary Judgment to HP in Class Action over Printer Ink Cartridges
Sometimes if you shake them, you can coax a few more pages out of them.
No, not associates. Printer ink cartridges.
It's hardly news to those of us who actually change printer cartridges that there's some little bit of ink left in there. We've all tried to coax it out when trying to print a last-minute brief or presentation and we've forgotten to stock up on backup cartridges. And, at least intellectually, we know that extra bit of ink is in there to keep us from ruining the printer by running it completely dry, as we otherwise would if left to our own devices.
But who would've thought you could make a federal case about it? Apparently at least one California resident.
In Baggett v. Hewlett-Packard Co., Case No. SACV 07-0667 AG (RNBx), Slip op. (C.D. Cal. Sept. 29, 2009), plaintiff brought a putative class action against HP because its laser jet printers shut down printer operations before the toner cartridges are really empty. According to plaintiff, the average amount of toner left in the cartridge was 9% for Black, 26% for Cyan, 30% for Magenta, and 19% for Yellow. The User Manual did not disclose that toner would remain in the cartridges when they reached "empty," but rather advised that the cartridges would yield up to 2,000 color pages. Plaintiff sued for trespass to chattels, conversion, violation of the Unfair Competition Law, and fraudulent concealment. The court granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment, thus mooting plaintiff's motion for class certification.
The court granted summary judgment on the trespass to chattels and conversion counts, applying the economic loss doctrine, which "requires a purchaser to recover in contract, and not tort, for 'purely economic loss due to disappointed expectations, unless he can demonstrate harm above and beyond a broken contractual promise.'" Slip op. at 3 (citation omitted). The purpose of the rule is to ensure that the law of sales is not overrun by tort law. Id. The court rejected plaintiff's argument that the rule did not apply to intentional torts. Id. at 4.
The court also rejected plaintiff's UCL claim, finding that the fact that he might have been able to print more pages with his original cartridge if HP had not instituted its automatic "hard stop" was irrelevant. Id. at 5-6. Rather, Plaintiff was promised the ability to print up to 2,000 color pages, which he apparently could do. As such, "Plaintiff received exactly what he paid for, and his "loss" of toner beyond that which he was promised cannot confer standing under the UCL.
Finally, the court considered and rejected plaintiff''s fraudulent concealment theory, which was based on the computer providing messages that toner must be replaced and the manufacturer failing to disclose that cartridges still contain "'a significant amount of toner'" when that message comes on. Id. at 6-7 (citation omitted). The court noted that "at no point did HP represent to Plaintiff that no toner remained in the cartridge," and observed that:
Under California law, a defendant can only be held liable for an omission where it is 'contrary to a representation actually made by the defendant, or an omission of fact the defendant was obligated to disclose.'"
Id. at 7 (citations omitted).
Because all of Plaintiff's causes of action had run dry, the court dismissed the case, holding that plaintiff's motion for class certification was moot.
