The Complaint was filed by Christina Rose in the United States District Court Northern District of California on 10 April, and alleges that HP fails to disclose that the printers use substantial amounts of coloured ink when printing images and text in black and white (a process known as “underprinting”).
HP Inc. has answered the Complaint filed by Christina Rose with a ‘Motion to Dismiss’ the case, alleging that in the original complaint, the Plaintiff has “…failed to plead a duty to disclose, a material omission, or an intent to defraud”, “…failed to plead a claim for any predicate violation of law”, “…failed to plead that she was in privity with Defendant or that the product was unfit for its ordinary use” and “…has not alleged any actionable misrepresentations or omissions”.
HP says in its motion, that it did not have a duty to disclose to the Plaintiff the details of the technical process and that “…it complied with that duty by providing detailed information about underprinting on its website and in its online user manuals, which have been available and accessible to any consumer well before Plaintiff purchased her printer.”
Therefore HP concludes in its motion, that “Plaintiff cannot seek injunctive relief because she has always had access to information regarding the underprinting process for HP’s printers and thus cannot plausibly allege she will be injured in the future.”
HP said that the Plaintiff’s complaint should be dismissed with prejudice.
