HP Inc. has faced a string of HP class action lawsuits over the past decade, with the biggest resolutions covering deceptive discount pricing on hp.com ($4 million), printer firmware that blocked third-party ink cartridges ($1.5 million plus a later injunction-only deal), securities fraud tied to the printing supplies business ($10.5 million and $39 million), and age discrimination in California workforce reductions ($18 million). Some claim deadlines have passed; a few matters remain open or were dismissed.
Deceptive Discount Pricing on HP.com
In Carvalho v. HP Inc. (No. 21-cv-08015-PCP, N.D. Cal.), plaintiffs alleged HP displayed inflated “strikethrough” prices next to discounted prices on its website, making shoppers believe they were getting a deal on products that had rarely, if ever, sold at the higher reference price. The complaint cited the HP All-in-One 24-dp1056qe, advertised with a $100 discount despite selling at the “discounted” price for months. It also alleged HP used false urgency labels like “Only 1 Left!” on products that remained in stock for weeks.1Ars Technica. HP Agrees to $4M Settlement Over Claims of Falsely Advertising PCs, Keyboards2ClassAction.org. Carvalho et al. v. HP Inc., Second Amended Class Action Complaint
HP agreed to a $4 million non-reversionary settlement without admitting wrongdoing. The class covered anyone in the United States who bought an HP desktop, laptop, mouse, or keyboard at a discount on hp.com between June 5, 2021, and October 28, 2024, if the product had been on sale more than 75 percent of that period. Covered product lines included HP Spectre, Chromebook, Envy, Pavilion, Omen, and Victus. Bulk buyers (more than two of the same product in one order) and HP employees were excluded.3ClassAction.org. Carvalho et al. v. HP Inc., Settlement Agreement4PCWorld. HP Pays Out $4 Million in Class Action Suit for False Advertising
Payments ran from $10 to $100 per product, adjusted based on how many valid claims came in. The claim deadline was June 9, 2025, and final approval came on August 27, 2025, with distributions expected to begin in November 2025.5HP Settlement. Carvalho v. HP Settlement FAQ6HP Settlement. Carvalho et al. v. HP Inc. Settlement If you did not file by the June 2025 deadline, you cannot claim from this fund.
Printer Firmware Blocking Third-Party Ink
HP’s “Dynamic Security” firmware, which blocks printers from working with non-HP cartridges, has produced three separate US class actions with very different outcomes.
The 2016 Firmware Update Case
In re HP Printer Firmware Update Litigation (No. 5:16-cv-05820-EJD-SVK, N.D. Cal.) challenged a firmware update that disabled printers using third-party cartridges and threw false “damaged or missing” cartridge errors. HP settled for $1.5 million, with final approval on April 25, 2019. Under the deal HP could not reinstall or reactivate Dynamic Security on the affected printers, and a cash fund reimbursed owners for lost money and time.7Saveri Law Firm. In re HP Printer Firmware Update Litigation That claim period is long closed.
The 2020 Dynamic Security Case
Mobile Emergency Housing Corp. v. HP Inc. (No. 5:20-cv-09157-SVK) targeted a November 2020 firmware update that blocked third-party cartridges on certain HP LaserJet Pro and Color LaserJet Pro models. Judge Susan Van Keulen approved the settlement in March 2025.8Ars Technica. HP Avoids Monetary Damages Over Bricked Printers in Class Action Settlement
This one paid nothing to the general class. HP gave $5,000 each to three named plaintiffs and $725,000 in attorneys’ fees. The relief was injunctive only: HP had to keep disclosing its Dynamic Security and data-collection practices, let owners of 21 listed “Class Printers” decline firmware updates containing Dynamic Security, and let owners of certain models remove existing Dynamic Security through a firmware update, restoring the ability to use third-party cartridges.9Yahoo Finance. HP Settles Class Action Lawsuit10RT Media World. HP Escapes Monetary Penalties in Class Action Settlement HP admitted no wrongdoing. If you own one of the listed printers, the practical takeaway is the ability to refuse the firmware update or roll back Dynamic Security, not a cash payment.
The 2024 Antitrust Case
Robinson v. HP Inc. (No. 1:24-cv-00164, N.D. Ill.) was a broader antitrust attempt. Eleven named plaintiffs from nine states argued that firmware updates in late 2022 and early 2023 created a monopoly in replacement ink cartridges, raising tying and monopolization claims under Section 2 of the Sherman Act.11Bradley. HP Facing Antitrust Class Action Alleging Unlawful Self-Preferencing On September 30, 2025, Judge Martha M. Pacold dismissed the case without prejudice, finding the tying claims inadequately supported.12Bloomberg Law. HP Gets Consumer Print Cartridge Monopoly Lawsuit Tossed for Now The plaintiffs may refile with amended claims.
Securities Fraud Settlements
Two shareholder class actions accused HP of misleading investors about the printing supplies business.
$10.5 Million Settlement (2023)
In re HP Inc. Securities Litigation (No. 3:20-cv-01260-SI, N.D. Cal.) alleged HP and several executives made false statements about the stabilization of printing supplies revenue during a class period of February 23, 2017 through October 3, 2019.13HP Securities Settlement. In re HP Inc. Securities Litigation Settlement Judge Susan Ilston granted final approval of the $10.5 million settlement on September 1, 2023, and approved $1.9 million in attorneys’ fees.14Bloomberg Law. HP Gets Approval for $10.5 Million Settlement in Stock Drop Case The court approved distribution in April 2025, with initial payments in June 2025.
$39 Million Settlement (2026)
York County on Behalf of the County of York Retirement Fund v. HP Inc. (No. 4:20-cv-07835-JSW, N.D. Cal.) alleged violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 through false statements about the Supplies business and related financial disclosures. The conduct was also described in a September 2020 SEC Order. The class covered anyone who bought HP common stock between November 5, 2015 and June 21, 2016.15HPQ Securities Settlement. York County v. HP Inc., Notice of Pendency and Proposed Settlement
The claim deadline was January 12, 2026. Judge Jeffrey S. White granted final approval of the $39 million settlement on February 13, 2026, calling it “very fair,” and approved $11.7 million in attorneys’ fees.16Law360. HP Investors Win Final OK for $39M Deal, Attys Get $11.7M HP denied the allegations throughout.17Claim Depot. HPQ Securities Settlement
Age Discrimination in California Layoffs
HP Inc. and Hewlett Packard Enterprise resolved a long-running age discrimination case originally filed on August 18, 2016. It alleged that a workforce reduction plan was designed to push out employees aged 40 and older and replace them with younger hires.18Andrus Anderson. Judge Approves $18 Million Settlement in HP Age Discrimination Case
Judge Edward J. Davila granted final approval of the $18 million settlement on March 29, 2024. The class was narrow: 356 people aged 40 or older who were terminated in California under HP’s workforce reduction plan between August 18, 2012 and February 15, 2022, and who had not signed a waiver or arbitration agreement. Average recovery was more than $50,000 per person.18Andrus Anderson. Judge Approves $18 Million Settlement in HP Age Discrimination Case Terminations outside California, or workers who signed waivers, fell outside the class.
Other HP Cases Worth Knowing
Twardzik v. HP Inc. (No. 1:21-cv-00396) alleged HP sold “Ultrabook” laptops with a slower version of the Nvidia GeForce MX150 GPU than advertised. The Third Circuit dismissed the case in September 2023, finding the lead plaintiff’s purchase turned on “his misunderstanding of his own research.”19Law360. 3rd Circ. Clears HP, Nvidia From Laptop Speed False Ad Suit
Rose v. HP Inc. (No. 3:20-cv-02450) alleged HP OfficeJet printers were designed to require color ink for black-and-white printing and to stop working entirely when color cartridges ran out, without adequate disclosure.20ClassAction.org. HP Intentionally Failed to Disclose OfficeJet Printers Won’t Print Black and White Without Color Ink, Class Action Alleges Hernandez v. HP Inc. (No. 1:22-cv-23482) alleged HP’s testing procedures for lithium-ion laptop batteries failed to catch manufacturing defects.21ClassAction.org. HP Lithium-Ion Batteries Improperly Tested for Defects, Class Action Claims No public resolution appeared in the records reviewed for either case.