HP Wins Ink Cartridge Lawsuit—for Now

Highlights

Class action lawsuit dismissed—plaintiffs alleged HP disabled printers using third-party ink
Court found insufficient evidence to support claims of tying, coercion, or market power
HP used “Dynamic Security” firmware to block non-HP cartridges
Plaintiffs may amend and refile complaint with more specific allegations
Case underscores legal limits of antitrust in tech ecosystems

The Core Facts

On January 8, 2024, a group of U.S. consumers filed a proposed class action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois (Robinson v. HP Inc., No. 1:24-cv-00164). The complaint alleged that HP Inc. unlawfully used software updates to disable printers that utilized non-HP ink cartridges, effectively forcing consumers into buying HP’s proprietary ink.

The plaintiffs are represented by S. Jarret Raab, Peggy J. Wedgworth, Arthur Stock, and Jimmy W. Mintz of Milberg Coleman Bryson Phillips Grossman PLLC.

The plaintiffs accused HP of:

Tying and monopolization under the Sherman Antitrust Act
Violating the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA)
Breaching various state-level deceptive trade practices laws
Unjust enrichment by profiting from restrictive design and hidden firmware changes

The firmware system in question—branded by HP as “Dynamic Security”—prevents printers from functioning with third-party cartridges. Consumers alleged they purchased HP printers unaware that future updates would lock out alternative ink options, raising their long-term costs.

However, on September 30, 2025, Judge Martha Pacold granted HP’s motion to dismiss. In a detailed opinion, she found that the complaint failed to plausibly allege an antitrust violation, nor did it adequately establish deception or unauthorized software access.

Importantly, the case was dismissed without prejudice, giving plaintiffs the option to amend and refile.

Background on HP and “Dynamic Security”

HP’s business model has long relied not just on selling printers, but on recurring revenue from ink and toner cartridges. To protect this revenue stream, HP has employed a combination of technological, contractual, and software-based tools to discourage third-party replacements.

In 2016, HP introduced firmware that could disable printers retroactively via “Dynamic Security” if non-HP cartridges were installed. This generated significant public backlash and litigation. In 2019, HP settled a class action in California, agreeing to pay $1.5 million and stop issuing Dynamic Security updates to certain printer models.

Yet HP later reintroduced Dynamic Security features to newer models and resumed firmware updates, often without clearly notifying users. Consumers argue that these tactics are deceptive and anti-competitive. HP, for its part, claims the measures are meant to protect printer performance and block counterfeit or damaged cartridges.

Political and Institutional Context

Though the HP case is a private consumer class action—not initiated by a regulatory agency—it occurs against a backdrop of renewed scrutiny over how tech companies control their ecosystems.

Federal antitrust enforcement has ramped up under the Biden administration. Both the DOJ and FTC have challenged vertical integration and software-based market control. Cases like Epic v. Apple and FTC v. Amazon show a growing interest in whether ecosystem “lock-ins” hurt consumers and competitors.

Private litigation like this HP case complements that enforcement by testing the boundaries of antitrust doctrine in digital and hybrid markets (hardware + software). While courts have traditionally been skeptical of tying claims in high-tech contexts, recent scholarship and regulatory pushback may give plaintiffs new momentum.

Still, as this ruling shows, courts demand rigorous factual support, particularly at the pleading stage.

Legal Context: Antitrust, CFAA, and Consumer Law

Tying and Market Power
At the heart of the lawsuit is a tying claim: that HP used its dominance in the printer market (the tying product) to force consumers into buying HP ink (the tied product), harming competition in the aftermarket.

Under Supreme Court precedent (Jefferson Parish Hospital District No. 2 v. Hyde, 1984), a tying claim must establish:

Two distinct products
Market power in the tying product
Coercion (a condition on purchase)
Substantial restraint of commerce

More recently, in Illinois Tool Works Inc. v. Independent Ink, Inc. (2006), the Court ruled that patent ownership alone doesn’t imply market power—plaintiffs must prove it.

In the HP case, Judge Pacold found that:

Plaintiffs failed to show a conditioned sale—i.e., HP didn’t explicitly require HP ink for printer use.
The complaint lacked evidence of market power, such as HP’s share of the U.S. printer market or barriers to switching.
The alleged harm was individual inconvenience, not broader competitive foreclosure.

Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA)
Plaintiffs also invoked the CFAA, a federal anti-hacking statute often used in data breach or insider access cases. They argued HP’s firmware changes constituted “unauthorized access” or manipulation of users’ devices.

But the court disagreed. Since HP is the device manufacturer and firmware owner, and users agreed to updates in their terms, the “unauthorized access” argument didn’t hold up. The CFAA isn’t typically applied to manufacturer-imposed restrictions—even those added post-sale.

State Law and Deceptive Practices
The plaintiffs also raised claims under the consumer protection laws of all 50 states. But Judge Pacold noted that the complaint failed to specify:

Which statements by HP were deceptive
Which states’ laws were violated, and how
Whether each named plaintiff actually relied on misleading claims

Such generalized, unparticularized allegations do not meet the heightened pleading standards for fraud-based claims.

Implications for Consumers and Antitrust Doctrine

This ruling illustrates the high bar facing plaintiffs in ecosystem control cases. Even when manufacturer tactics seem aggressive or unfair, courts want clear evidence of coercion, market power, and injury to competition—not just inconvenience.

Still, the court’s decision to allow an amended complaint keeps the door open. A revised filing could offer:

More specific evidence of firmware impact
Better market definition and economic analysis
User communications showing lack of disclosure
Technical expert declarations on disabling behavior

The case may yet proceed to discovery, which could expose HP internal documents on its firmware strategy.

From a legal theory standpoint, this lawsuit is part of a growing tension between:

Legacy antitrust law, built for physical goods
Modern tech ecosystems, where software controls aftermarket and functionality

Plaintiffs are trying to adapt old doctrines to new realities, while courts weigh whether such analogies hold. The outcome of this and similar cases could shape how far antitrust law stretches into consumer tech ecosystems.

What’s Next

Plaintiffs are expected to file an amended complaint addressing the deficiencies identified by Judge Pacold.
HP may again move to dismiss, but if the claims survive, the case would proceed to discovery, where internal memos, emails, and technical logs could provide leverage.
A settlement is possible if litigation costs or reputational damage rise.
Consumer rights groups may join via amicus briefs or parallel advocacy, especially if state AGs take an interest.
The case could also become a precedent in the growing debate over software-based product control, “right to repair,” and aftermarket freedom.

Conclusion

While HP won a round in court, the broader legal and policy questions raised by the case remain unresolved. Can a company that sells a physical product continue to control its aftermarket through software? Do consumers have meaningful freedom of choice when software disables third-party parts? And how can antitrust law evolve to meet the challenge of digital lock-ins?

The Robinson v. HP lawsuit may be an early test case—but it won’t be the last.

Sources

Reuters: HP hit with consumer lawsuit over third-party ink
Reuters: HP defeats U.S. consumer lawsuit
The Recycler: HP wins dismissal of class action lawsuit
Opinion: Robinson v. HP Inc.
Illinois Tool Works Inc. v. Independent Ink, Inc., 547 U.S. 28 (2006)

Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007); Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009)

The views expressed are those of the author and do not represent the views of HP, Inc. or any affiliated entities.HP is a registered trademark of HP, Inc. This publication is not affiliated with, endorsed by, or sponsored by HP, Inc. All trademarks and company names are the property of their respective owners.