返回档案库

案例库 · 产品与设计 · 产品决策 · 2020–2025

这条还没译成中文,下面是英文原文。

HP pushed a firmware update that bricked printers using non-HP ink — customers had no idea

A November 2020 'Dynamic Security' update silently blocked third-party cartridges. HP avoided damages, but had to make future lockout updates optional.

HP Inc. · 2020-11-01

怎么回事

In November 2020, HP pushed a firmware update to a range of LaserJet and OfficeJet printers that activated 'Dynamic Security' — a feature that rejects cartridges using non-HP chips, including compatible refills and remanufactured cartridges customers had already bought and were using without issue.

Owners who had installed the routine-looking update found their printers refusing ink they'd already paid for, with no clear warning beforehand that a firmware update would change what cartridges the machine would accept. Small businesses using budget cartridges were hit hardest, since Dynamic Security cartridges typically cost more than compatible alternatives.

A class action followed in the Northern District of California. In August 2024, HP settled: it agreed to make future firmware updates that add Dynamic Security restrictions optional for the affected printer models, and to keep disclosing when a cartridge-blocking measure is coming, rather than shipping it inside a routine update.

The settlement, approved in March 2025, paid no damages to the broader class — only $5,000 each to three named plaintiffs and $725,000 in attorneys' fees. HP avoided a payout, but the case established that a firmware update changing what hardware a device accepts needs to be disclosed and optional, not silent.

为什么会这样

  • HP shipped a firmware update that changed printer behavior toward a customer's existing, already-purchased ink without describing that change beforehand.
  • Bundling a commercial restriction — which cartridges are accepted — inside what looked like a routine security update meant customers had no way to decline it based on its real effect.
  • The restriction hit cost-sensitive small-business customers hardest, the segment most likely to use cheaper compatible cartridges and least likely to expect a printer update to change that.
  • Avoiding disclosure saved HP nothing once litigated: the settlement forced the exact opt-in disclosure regime a clear notice at launch would have provided voluntarily.
代价no class damages; $725K in legal fees; opt-out now required丢脸

教训

A firmware update restricting what a customer's own hardware can use is a commercial decision wearing a security label. Ship it undisclosed and a court will eventually force the disclosure anyway.

资料来源

发现哪里写错了?告诉我们。

Comments · 0

    登录 后就能评论。

    类似的案例

    这家公司栽倒的地方,别处有人漂亮地解开过。 第二意见 →