Podpora strankam
070 282 282
Članek: Epson Accused of Blocking Remaining Ink (11/6/2003)
A recent lawsuit filed in a Texas District Court accuses Epson of shortchanging users of its printers, alleging that some models of the company’s inkjet cartridges prematurely show that they are empty. This blocks Epson printers from functioning even though a substantial amount of ink remains in the cartridge.
According to the papers filed on Oct. 24 by the law firm of Harnes Keller LLP of New York, the class-action lawsuit is on behalf of all consumers who purchased an Epson-brand inkjet printer fitted with an Intellidge chip either with the purchase of an Epson printer or separately with the purchase of a replacement inkjet cartridge. While the exact number of class members is unknown, based on Epson’s sales of printers in the United States, it is estimated to be approximately 500,000. The lawsuit is asking the court to enter a judgment requiring Epson to return money “in the amount which Epson had been unjustly enriched.”
Based on independent tests, the lawsuit alleges that “10-30 percent of ink remained in Epson inkjet cartridges despite the fact that the Intellidge chip was blocking the printer from functioning.”
According to the suit, several common questions that will form the basis of the case include: whether or not Epson cartridges with the Intellidge chip prematurely indicate that they are “empty” on customers'' computers while there is still substantial ink remaining in the cartridge; whether or not the cartridges prematurely block Epson printers from functioning while there is substantial ink remaining in the cartridge; and whether or not the Intellidge chip''s false indication that the inkjet cartridge is “empty” forced the plaintiff class to purchase replacement Epson inkjet cartridges prematurely.
Some background facts cited in the lawsuit allege that the price of inkjet cartridges remains “relatively high” despite competition from generic cartridge manufacturers and recyclers and, as a result, printer companies earn more revenue annually from the sale of replacement inkjet cartridges than from the sale of actual inkjet printers. In the complaint, Harnes Keller LLP also alleges that Epson “actively and consistently discourages” the use of any replacement cartridges other than those manufactured by Epson.
The suit is the third of its kind filed against Epson by Harnes Keller LLP. Harnes Keller LLP, together with local counsel, filed similar claims in a San Mateo, Calif., Superior Court and also at Kings County, N.Y., Supreme Court earlier this year. Neither case has gone to trial. A representative of Harnes Keller LLP said that it is the firm’s policy not to comment on any pending litigation.
According to the papers filed on Oct. 24 by the law firm of Harnes Keller LLP of New York, the class-action lawsuit is on behalf of all consumers who purchased an Epson-brand inkjet printer fitted with an Intellidge chip either with the purchase of an Epson printer or separately with the purchase of a replacement inkjet cartridge. While the exact number of class members is unknown, based on Epson’s sales of printers in the United States, it is estimated to be approximately 500,000. The lawsuit is asking the court to enter a judgment requiring Epson to return money “in the amount which Epson had been unjustly enriched.”
Based on independent tests, the lawsuit alleges that “10-30 percent of ink remained in Epson inkjet cartridges despite the fact that the Intellidge chip was blocking the printer from functioning.”
According to the suit, several common questions that will form the basis of the case include: whether or not Epson cartridges with the Intellidge chip prematurely indicate that they are “empty” on customers'' computers while there is still substantial ink remaining in the cartridge; whether or not the cartridges prematurely block Epson printers from functioning while there is substantial ink remaining in the cartridge; and whether or not the Intellidge chip''s false indication that the inkjet cartridge is “empty” forced the plaintiff class to purchase replacement Epson inkjet cartridges prematurely.
Some background facts cited in the lawsuit allege that the price of inkjet cartridges remains “relatively high” despite competition from generic cartridge manufacturers and recyclers and, as a result, printer companies earn more revenue annually from the sale of replacement inkjet cartridges than from the sale of actual inkjet printers. In the complaint, Harnes Keller LLP also alleges that Epson “actively and consistently discourages” the use of any replacement cartridges other than those manufactured by Epson.
The suit is the third of its kind filed against Epson by Harnes Keller LLP. Harnes Keller LLP, together with local counsel, filed similar claims in a San Mateo, Calif., Superior Court and also at Kings County, N.Y., Supreme Court earlier this year. Neither case has gone to trial. A representative of Harnes Keller LLP said that it is the firm’s policy not to comment on any pending litigation.