Locking out third party toner

The lawsuit centred on HP’s controversial Dynamic Security feature: software designed to detect and reject toner cartridges not produced by HP itself. The system, enabled through automatic firmware updates, left some users unable to print at all if they’d chosen cheaper, third party alternatives.

The lead plaintiffs included Mobile Emergency Housing Corp (MEHC), a US based organisation providing emergency shelter services, and Performance Automotive, a car parts business. Both reported that HP printers they had purchased in good faith suddenly stopped accepting non HP toner after a firmware update was remotely triggered.

• MEHC said it had bought an HP Color LaserJet Pro M254 in 2019 and opted for third party toner in 2020 to cut costs. The following month, a firmware update rendered the cartridges useless.
• Performance Automotive said it had a similar experience with its HP Color LaserJet Pro MFP M281fdw after installing an update that blocked non HP supplies.

A profitable strategy?

It seems that HP hasn’t denied the existence of Dynamic Security. In fact, it appears to have defended the system openly. For example, speaking back at the 2024 World Economic Forum in Davos, CEO Enrique Lores highlighted how HP’s business model depends on profits from consumables, not hardware, saying: “We lose money on the hardware, we make money on the supplies,” and that, “we’re investing in that customer every time a printer is sold.”

The fact that in FY2024, HP’s printing division generated $4.5 billion in net revenue, much of it from proprietary ink and toner sales, appears to support this idea.

Lores has also argued that Dynamic Security helps protect customers from potential security threats, claiming third party cartridges could, in theory, carry malicious firmware. However, such risks remain hypothetical and there’s little evidence of this happening in real world scenarios.

Settlement without liability

Rather than fight the lawsuit in court, HP has now agreed to settle without admitting wrongdoing. Under the terms, the company will continue to disclose that its printers may block third party cartridges and has pledged to allow customers the choice to install or decline firmware updates containing Dynamic Security.

“HP denies that it did anything wrong,” the official settlement notice states, “but agrees to maintain certain disclosures and options regarding firmware updates.”

While it appears that no compensation will be paid, the agreement marks another chapter in HP’s ongoing efforts to defend its closed ecosystem, even as it comes under increasing scrutiny from customers and regulators alike.

The growing backlash against lock in

Unfortunately for HP, this issue isn’t likely to go away. Many customers see the lockout as an unfair restriction, especially when third party cartridges can cost a fraction of the price. On forums and social media, frustrated users have voiced concerns about being forced into costly purchases with little warning or transparency.

For businesses that rely on predictable print costs, these kinds of restrictions can have real operational impacts. For example:

• Disruption risk. Sudden firmware changes can halt printing workflows, causing downtime for organisations.
• Cost inflation. HP branded toner is often significantly more expensive, impacting budgets for schools, small businesses, and non profits.
• Reduced trust. Customers may question whether HP prioritises their interests, or simply its bottom line.

HP’s not the only one

It’s worth noting here that HP’s not alone in exploring this kind of supply chain lock in. Other printer makers, including Canon and Epson, have also been accused of using software to prevent third party cartridges from functioning.

However HP has become one of the most visible examples, perhaps because it’s also one of the most vocal. With lawsuits, user complaints, and increasing regulatory scrutiny in both the US and EU, it seems that efforts to tightly control consumables may be backfiring.

A 2023 report by the European Commission warned that such tactics could breach consumer rights, and several EU countries are now pushing for regulations guaranteeing “the right to repair” and “freedom of choice” for printer supplies.

HP, meanwhile, remains firm on its stance, offering its own cartridge recycling programmes and claiming that its proprietary ecosystem is ultimately more sustainable and secure.

That said, for many customers, particularly in sectors where budgets are tight, that argument is proving increasingly hard to justify.

What does this mean for your business?

HP’s settlement may avoid an outright legal defeat but is likely to leave lingering concerns for businesses that rely on its printers. The company’s willingness to restrict functionality through remote updates, especially without warning, appears to raise serious questions about control, transparency and long term value.

While HP has pledged to give users the choice over future firmware updates, the incident highlights the risks of buying into ecosystems that can be altered unilaterally. For small businesses, charities, schools, and other organisations with tight margins, the ability to use affordable third party toner isn’t just a preference but is a necessity.

It’s also a warning sign for procurement teams that printer selection should no longer be just about hardware specs or upfront cost. It’s about understanding how restrictive the vendor’s software policies are, and what support or surprises may lie ahead.

If anything, this case shows how vendors are doubling down on closed loop business models. Companies may want to reassess whether HP’s approach aligns with their operational and financial priorities, or if a more open, flexible printing solution would be the smarter investment.

As printer manufacturers continue to balance profit protection with customer satisfaction, the pressure is on to prove that these digital lock ins serve users as well as shareholders.

The post HP’s Toner Blocking Settlement appeared first on Quayside Technical Services.

Firmware updates allegedly restrict third party ink

Right to repair activist and electronics technician Louis Rossmann has accused Brother of deploying firmware updates that hinder the use of non OEM (Original Equipment Manufacturer) consumables. According to Rossmann, users have reported that certain printer functions, such as automatic colour registration, stop working after an update when a third party cartridge is detected.

Several users have taken to forums and social media to confirm similar issues, with reports stating that previously functional non OEM toner cartridges suddenly started producing lower quality prints or experiencing feature restrictions. Furthermore, rolling back to an earlier firmware version is proving difficult, as Brother has removed older updates from its servers.

Brother denies any wrongdoing

Brother has responded to the allegations, denying any deliberate attempt to block third party consumables. The company issued a statement saying:

“We are aware of the recent false claims suggesting that a Brother firmware update may have restricted the use of third-party ink cartridges. Please be assured that Brother firmware updates do not block the use of third-party ink in our machines.”

Brother maintains that while they encourage the use of Brother branded toner for optimal performance, their printers do not intentionally degrade print quality based on the cartridge brand. The company attributes user concerns to its standard troubleshooting process, which includes a “Brother Genuine check”: a diagnostic step that ensures a printer functions correctly with its own branded consumables.

Not the first manufacturer to face backlash

Brother is not the first printer manufacturer accused of anti consumer practices related to third party ink. HP, for example, has implemented “Dynamic Security,” which blocks non HP cartridges entirely. The company has faced multiple lawsuits over this strategy, with critics accusing it of monopolistic practices. HP, however, defends its approach, citing security risks associated with third party cartridges, including claims that they could potentially introduce malware.

Similarly, Canon has been criticised for implementing firmware updates that disable scanning functions when ink is low, even when the ink is unrelated to the scanning process. Epson has also faced scrutiny for its use of DRM (Digital Rights Management) technology, which prevents cartridges from functioning after a certain period, even if they remain full.

What does this mean for your business?

For businesses relying on printers for everyday operations, Brother’s alleged restrictions could pose challenges. Many companies opt for third party toner to cut costs, often paying significantly less than the high price of OEM cartridges. However, with firmware updates now potentially limiting this option, businesses may find themselves locked into purchasing expensive Brother branded supplies.

While Brother insists that these changes do not impact third party ink compatibility, user reports suggest otherwise. Companies using Brother printers may need to consider steps such as disabling automatic firmware updates to prevent potential functionality losses. However, doing so carries security risks, as firmware updates often include patches for vulnerabilities.

The growing controversy surrounding printer manufacturers and third party ink restrictions could push regulatory bodies to take action. Consumer advocacy groups have already called for stricter oversight of post sale function removal, arguing that disabling previously available features through software updates constitutes deceptive business practices.

As the debate unfolds, businesses should remain vigilant, assessing how these firmware updates might affect their operations. While Brother’s printers have historically been a more user friendly option in terms of third party toner compatibility, recent developments suggest that the industry as a whole is moving toward tighter control over consumable use, thereby raising important questions about fairness, transparency and consumer choice.

The post Brother Accused Of Blocking Third Party Ink appeared first on Quayside Technical Services.