Placeholder image

HP: Motion to dismiss not fully rejected

April 28, 2020

John Parziale brought a complaint to the courts, seeking to stop HP’s practice of modifying and corrupting Purchasers’ printers by forcing unauthorized changes to their firmware.

The Class Action was brought by Florida based John Parziale and others on the 27th August 2019 in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, HP’s principal place of business and headquarters. The complaint was further amended on the 13th November 2019.

HP recently filed a motion to dismiss the case claiming it is not under any legal duty to make its printers compatible with non-HP ink cartridges.

Parziale alleges in its claim that HP violated the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade practices Act (“FDUTPA”), the Florida Misleading Advertisement Law (the “FMAL”), the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (“CFAA”) and “Trespass to Chattels”.

HP’s motion to dismiss is granted in part. The conclusion of the courts that Parziale’s “FDUTPA claim (Claim 1), FMAL claim (Claim 2), and CFAA claim (Claim 3) to the extent it is premised on 18 U.S.C. §§ 1030(a)(5)(B), 1030(a)(5)(C), 1030(a)(2)(C), and 1030(a)(6)(A) are dismissed with leave to amend. HP’s motion to dismiss is denied in all other respects. HP’s motion to strike Plaintiff’s request for injunctive relief is denied.”

Parziale has until 22 May to file an amended complaint.

Categories : Around the Industry

Tags :

Leave a Reply

Advertisement