Antitrust Law Daily Wrap Up, ANTITRUST—N.D. Ill.: Consumer complaint against printer manufacturer HP dismissed, (Oct 1, 2025)

By Thomas K. Lauletta, J.D.

Class representation was denied for consumers who purchased HP-branded and non-HP replacement ink cartridges.

The federal district court in Chicago dismissed federal and state law claims brought by eleven consumers against computer printer manufacturer HP, Inc. The court held that the consumers failed to present sufficient facts supporting that HP had operated a tying arrangement under Section 1 of the Sherman Act. Section 2 of the Sherman Act liability did not apply because the complaint did not allege that HP possessed monopoly power or that it possessed sufficient market power to create a monopoly. The Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (“CFAA”) did not apply because the consumers could not allege that they individually met the CFAA $5,000 loss requirement. The consumers’ state law claims were also dismissed (Robinson v. HP, Inc., No. 1:24-cv-00164 (N.D. Ill. Sept. 30, 2025)).

Defendant HP is one of the world’s largest manufacturers of computer and computer printers. It also manufactures replacement ink cartridges.

According to the consumers, they purchased HP printers at different times between 2016 and 2023. Included with each HP printer were marketing materials requesting that all purchasers register their devices online to receive printer software and firmware updates. If a consumer registered his printer, there was no way the consumer could opt out of any specific software or firmware update; the printer would download the update automatically if it St connected to the Internet. Also according to the consumers’ complaint, none of the consumers had received any warning at the time of the firmware update or at the time of the purchase of a printer that by registering their printers to receive regular updates, the consumers might lose the ability to use non-HP replacement ink cartridges.

A group of eleven consumers residing in various states have sued HP, Inc., alleging HP printer firmware updates forced them to use only HP-branded ink cartridges. The consumers brought the action on behalf of themselves and all persons in two defined classes: 1) the “HP Ink Purchaser Class” consisting of consumers who purchased an HP-branded replacement ink cartridge for class printer models between September 2022 and the present; and, 2) the “Firmware Update Class” consisting of all persons who purchased a non HP-branded replacement ink cartridge, for use in any of the same class printer models in the same time period, who then found they were unable to use that ink in connection with the firmware update.

The consumers brought their cause of action under Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act, the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, and state consumer protection laws. The consumers also bring claims for unjust enrichment and seek damages and declaratory and injunctive relief.

Tying under Sherman Act Section 1. Count III of the complaint alleged that HP’s firmware update creates an illegal tying arrangement in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act. The court stated that a tying arrangement constitutes a per se violation of Section 1 if the seller has appreciable economic power in the tying product market and if the arrangement affects a substantial volume of commerce in the tied market.

The court concluded that the complaint does not identify a cognizable tying arrangement because the consumers do not allege that HP conditioned the sale of printers, the tying product, on an agreement to purchase HP-branded ink cartridges, the tied product.

Exclusionary conduct under Sherman Act Section 2. The consumers’ Sherman Act Section 2 claim alleged that “the anticompetitive conduct, of implementing a firmware update to prevent owners of HP printers from using any competitor’s replacement ink cartridges, has unreasonably restrained and threatens to continue to unreasonably restrain competition in the HP replacement ink cartridge aftermarket.”

Among other defects in the complaint’s Sherman Act Section 2 claims, the court stated that the complaint failed to allege that HP possessed monopoly power or that HP possessed sufficient market power to create a monopoly.

Computer Fraud and Abuse Act. Count I of the complaint asserted a claim under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA). Section 1030(a)(2)(C) imposes liability on whoever “intentionally accesses a computer without authorization or exceeds authorized access and thereby obtains . . . information from any protected computer.”

The court dismissed this count on the narrow ground that the consumers did not individually allege that they satisfied the CFAA’s $5,000 threshold. Based on reading the statutory language, the court refused to aggregate the harms allegedly caused by dozens of separate offenses.

State law claims. The consumers’ state law claims asserted violations of the consumer protection, unfair and deceptive practices, and antitrust laws of all fifty states. The consumers also brought an unjust enrichment claim without specifying the applicable state law.

Standing. According to the complaint, the named plaintiffs are citizens of Illinois, Missouri, Pennsylvania, Massachusetts, Michigan, New Jersey, New York, Nevada, and Tennessee. The consumers bring claims under the laws of all fifty states. Sixty-three of the seventy-nine causes of action arise under the laws of states where the named plaintiffs do not reside and suffered no alleged injury.

The court held that the consumers had Article III standing. Accordingly, the court did not have to decide whether plaintiffs may bring their class claims under the laws of states to which the plaintiffs have no connection.

Failure to state a claim. HP argued that the named consumers failed to state a claim for violations of the various states’ consumer protection, unfair and deceptive practices, and antitrust laws. HP also argued that consumers failed to allege a plausible unjust enrichment claim.

The antitrust theory. The consumers asserted violations of various states’ consumer protection and unfair and deceptive practices acts based on HP’s alleged antitrust violations. The court held that because it had dismissed the consumers’ federal antitrust claims, to the extent that the consumers’ consumer protection and unfair and deceptive practices claims also were based on HP’s alleged anticompetitive behavior, these state law claims will also be dismissed.

The fraud theory. The consumers alleged that HP purposefully misled them by failing to disclose the effects of the firmware update. According to the complaint, HP never indicated in its printer manuals that “agreeing to accept software and firmware updates could damage any features of the printer.” The court rejected this theory, stating that the complaint did not plausibly allege that HP purposefully misled them by failing to disclose the effects of the firmware update.

State antitrust laws. Because the court had dismissed consumers’ federal antitrust claims, it also dismissed the consumers’ state antitrust claims.

Unjust enrichment. The consumers’ claim for unjust enrichment was dismissed for failure to plead under which state’s law the claim was made.

Dismissal of class claims. Because the court had dismissed the consumers’ individual claims, this made them unable to represent a multi-state class asserting claims under the laws of various states.

Court action. The district court dismissed the consumers’ complaint, with leave to amend.

The Case is No. 1:24-cv-00164.

Judge: Pacold, M.

Attorneys: Arthur Stock (Milberg Coleman Bryson Phillips Grossman, PLLC) for Renee Robinson. Brian Y. Chang (Eimer Stahl LLP) for HP Inc.

Companies: HP Inc.

Cases: Antitrust StateUnfairTradePractices IllinoisNews