HP is arguing that Plaintiffs may only challenge HP’s malicious firmware practices vis a vis those HP LaserJet models owned by 3 Plaintiffs in Mobile Emergency v. HP. However, Plaintiffs wish to take HP to trial over the malicious firmware updates that they send to all their dynamic security enabled printers, not just LaserJet printers.
Now enter a new Plaintiff, Paige Vollmer is an Inkjet printer owner who fell victim to HP’s firmware “update.” Ms. Vollmer brings a claim regarding her Inkjet printer that received a malicious firmware transmission from HP. If Plaintiffs’ motion to accept Vollmer’s claim is granted, HP will likely have to answer for its firmware practices generally and not be able to argue that this case applies only to LaserJet models.
Instead of stopping sending malicious firmware transmissions to its customers, HP argued in response to Plaintiffs’ motion that Plaintiffs’ motion for leave to amend should be denied because it is too late to bring these claims and expanding discovery at this stage would be too burdensome. On Monday, Plaintiffs filed their reply in support of leave to amend arguing that there is no prejudice to HP at this stage in the litigation. The motion for leave to file the 4th amended complaint is now fully briefed and waiting for the court’s resolution.