Consumer Rights Wiki - User contributions [en]

BMW Proprietary Screws

2026-04-19T14:34:40Z

PixelRunner: PixelRunner moved page BMW Proprietary Screws to BMW proprietary screws: Misspelled title: Not in sentence case

#REDIRECT [[BMW proprietary screws]]

BMW proprietary screws

2026-04-19T14:34:39Z

PixelRunner: PixelRunner moved page BMW Proprietary Screws to BMW proprietary screws: Misspelled title: Not in sentence case

{{#seo:
|description=BMW filed a patent for roundel-shaped screws that block standard tools, restricting vehicle owners and independent shops from basic vehicle maintenance.
}}
{{IncidentCargo
|Company=BMW
|StartDate=2025-12-11
|Status=Active
|ArticleType=Product
|Type=Repairability,Anti-consumer Behavior
|Description=BMW patented a roundel-shaped screw that blocks standard tools, restricting vehicle owners and independent shops from basic maintenance
}}
[[File:BMW Proprietary Screw.png|thumb|right|alt=Diagram of BMW's proprietary screw patent showing the roundel-shaped head design|Patent diagram of BMW's proprietary roundel-shaped fastener (DE102024115950)]]
'''BMW''' patented a fastener whose head is shaped like the company's roundel logo, designed so that no standard screwdriver, hex key, or Torx bit can engage it.<ref name="carbuzz">{{Cite web |last=Williams |first=Evan |date=2025-12-17 |title=BMW Patents Proprietary Screws That Only Dealerships Can Remove |url=https://carbuzz.com/bmw-roundel-logo-screw-patent/ |website=CarBuzz |access-date=2026-03-26}}</ref> The patent (DE102024115950), filed on June 7, 2024 and published on December 11, 2025, covers screws intended for seat mountings, center consoles, and the connection between the cockpit and the vehicle body.<ref name="carscoops">{{Cite web |last=Pappas |first=Thanos |date=2025-12-22 |title=BMW Just Designed A Screw That Locks You Out Of Your Own Repairs |url=https://www.carscoops.com/2025/12/bmw-just-designed-a-screw-that-locks-you-out-of-your-own-repairs/ |website=Carscoops |access-date=2026-03-26}}</ref> If implemented, vehicle owners, independent repair shops, and smaller garages would need BMW-specific tooling to perform work that currently requires common hand tools.

== Background ==

Manufacturers have used proprietary fasteners to restrict unauthorized disassembly for decades. [[Apple]] introduced pentalobe screws on the MacBook Pro in 2009 and the iPhone 4 in 2010, replacing standard Phillips screws with a five-lobed design not found in any standard toolkit.<ref name="pentalobe-wp">{{Cite web |title=Pentalobe screw |url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pentalobe_screw |website=Wikipedia |access-date=2026-03-26}}</ref> iFixit condemned the switch in January 2011, calling it a deliberate barrier to repair.<ref name="ifixit-pentalobe">{{Cite web |title=Apple's Diabolical Plan to Screw Your iPhone |url=https://www.ifixit.com/News/14279/apples-diabolical-plan-to-screw-your-iphone |website=iFixit |date=2011-01-20 |access-date=2026-03-26}}</ref> Third-party pentalobe drivers appeared for sale within months at roughly $3 each.<ref name="pentalobe-wp" />

European automakers including BMW, Volkswagen, and Mercedes-Benz already use Triple-square, E-Torx, and large hex fasteners that require specialized sockets, though these use standardized drive profiles available from any tool supplier.<ref name="carbuzz" /> BMW's patent creates an entirely new geometry tied to the company's trademarked logo, making it distinct from any existing drive standard.<ref name="autopian">{{Cite web |last=Silvestro |first=Brian |date=2025-12-18 |title=Patent Shows BMW Has An Egocentric New Way To Make Working On Your BMW Even More Annoying |url=https://www.theautopian.com/patent-shows-bmw-has-an-egocentric-new-way-to-make-working-on-your-bmw-even-more-annoying/ |website=The Autopian |access-date=2026-03-26}}</ref>

== Proprietary fastener patent ==

Patent application DE102024115950 was filed with the German Patent and Trademark Office (DPMA) on June 7, 2024 and published on December 11, 2025.<ref name="carscoops" /><ref name="patent">{{Cite web |title=DE102024115950A1 - Schraube |url=https://patents.google.com/patent/DE102024115950A1/en |website=Google Patents |access-date=2026-03-26}}</ref> The patent describes a screw whose drive structure (''Antriebsstruktur'') intentionally deviates from every industry-standard geometry.<ref name="patent" />

The screw head is modeled after BMW's four-quadrant roundel emblem. Two opposite quadrants are recessed to accept a matching proprietary driver bit, while the other two are flush or raised. An outer ring carries the "BMW" lettering. The patent covers four distinct head variations: a socket head, a flat head with a cone-shaped shank, and round-head variations with flat shanks.<ref name="carbuzz" /><ref name="bmwblog">{{Cite web |last=Boeriu |first=Horatiu |date=2025-12-31 |title=BMW Designs Roundel-Shaped Screw Heads That Could Require Special Tools |url=https://www.bmwblog.com/2025/12/30/bmw-roundel-screw-patent/ |website=BMWBlog |access-date=2026-03-26}}</ref>

Seat mountings, center consoles, and the junction between cockpit panels and the load-bearing body structure are named as intended applications.<ref name="carbuzz" /> These are routine-access areas: a seat must be unbolted to access wiring harnesses, child seat anchors, or items dropped beneath it.

BMW's filing describes standard screws as having a "disadvantage" because they "can be loosened or tightened in a simple manner by persons." The roundel-shaped recesses, BMW states, prevent "the screw from being loosened or tightened using common counter-drive structures, e.g. by unauthorized persons."<ref name="patent" />

iFixit noted that the design "prioritizes branding over utility," since the head is shaped to display the BMW logo rather than to optimize torque transfer.<ref name="ifixit">{{Cite web |last=Mokhtari |first=Shahram |date=2026-02-04 |title=BMW's Newest "Innovation" is a Logo-Shaped Middle Finger to Right to Repair |url=https://www.ifixit.com/News/115528/bmws-newest-innovation-is-a-logo-shaped-middle-finger-to-right-to-repair |website=iFixit |access-date=2026-03-26}}</ref> Because the functional geometry reproduces the BMW roundel, any aftermarket manufacturer producing a compatible driver bit would also reproduce the BMW logo shape.

As of March 2026, the proprietary screws have not been deployed in production vehicles. The patent remains a filing, not a manufactured component.<ref name="bmwblog" />

=== BMW's response ===

None of the publications covering the patent reported obtaining a comment from BMW.<ref name="carbuzz" /><ref name="carscoops" /><ref name="autopian" /> The patent filing's own language about preventing manipulation by "unauthorized persons" remains the only stated justification.<ref name="patent" />

== Right-to-repair legislation ==

The patent was published during a period of expanding [[right to repair]] legislation in the United States and the European Union, but current laws contain intellectual property exemptions that BMW's approach could exploit.

California's Right to Repair Act (SB 244), effective July 1, 2024, requires manufacturers to make repair parts, tools, and documentation available. It contains a carve-out: manufacturers "do not have to disclose trade secrets, or license any intellectual property, including copyrights or patents."<ref name="jalopnik">{{Cite web |last=Buono |first=Eugene |date=2026-02-09 |title=BMW Has Patented A Way To Make DIY Car Repairs Much Harder |url=https://www.jalopnik.com/2093749/bmw-patents-way-to-make-diy-car-repairs-harder/ |website=Jalopnik |access-date=2026-03-26}}</ref> A patented fastener geometry falls within this exemption.

At the federal level, the REPAIR Act (H.R. 1566) was reintroduced on February 25, 2025 by a bipartisan group of 16 lawmakers led by Rep. Neal Dunn (R-FL) and Rep. Marie Gluesenkamp Perez (D-WA). The bill would require automakers to provide independent repair facilities with access to diagnostic codes, calibration tools, and repair information on the same terms offered to franchised dealers.<ref name="autobodynews">{{Cite web |last=McArdle |first=Lisa |date=2026-03-11 |title=Right to Repair in 2026: Where Laws, Courts, and Automakers Stand |url=https://www.autobodynews.com/news/right-to-repair-in-2026-where-laws-courts-and-automakers-stand |website=Autobody News |access-date=2026-03-26}}</ref> However, the bill's scope covers data and software access. Physical fastener design is not addressed.

The EU's Right to Repair Directive (2024/1799), adopted on June 13, 2024, prohibits manufacturers from using "contractual clauses, hardware or software techniques that impede the repair of goods" unless justified by "legitimate and objective factors including the protection of intellectual property rights."<ref name="eu-directive">{{Cite web |title=Directive on repair of goods |url=https://commission.europa.eu/law/law-topic/consumer-protection-law/directive-repair-goods_en |website=European Commission |access-date=2026-03-26}}</ref> Member states must transpose the directive into national law by July 31, 2026. No enforcement action or court ruling as of March 2026 has addressed whether a patented fastener geometry meets the directive's intellectual property exception.

A 2024 Auto Care Association survey of 407 independent repair shops found that 84% view vehicle data and tool access as the top issue facing their business, 63% experience daily or weekly repair difficulties due to manufacturer restrictions, and 51% send up to five vehicles per month to dealers because they lack the required proprietary tools or credentials. The association estimated these restrictions cost independent shops $3.1 billion annually.<ref name="autocare-survey">{{Cite web |date=2024-04-10 |title=Survey: 84% of Independent Repair Shops View Vehicle Data Access as Top Issue for Their Business |url=https://www.autocare.org/news/latest-news/details/2024/04/10/survey-84-of-independent-repair-shops-view-vehicle-data-access-as-top-issue-for-their-business |website=Auto Care Association |access-date=2026-03-26}}</ref>

== Community response ==

CarBuzz broke the story on December 17, 2025.<ref name="carbuzz" /> Coverage followed from The Autopian on December 18,<ref name="autopian" /> Carscoops on December 22,<ref name="carscoops" /> and BMWBlog on December 31.<ref name="bmwblog" /> A second wave of coverage came in February 2026 after iFixit published a detailed analysis and Adafruit demonstrated a 3D-printed workaround.

iFixit's Shahram Mokhtari called the patent "a logo-shaped middle finger to right to repair" and noted that the screw geometry can't withstand the torque of standard Torx or hex fasteners, resulting in "broken bits, stripped screws, and more time spent on what would otherwise be a simple task."<ref name="ifixit" /> The iFixit analysis also noted that BMW's Recycling and Dismantling Center in Landshut, Germany, already uses a proprietary oil-draining tool for shock absorbers that it has not made available to other refurbishers.<ref name="ifixit" />

Adafruit reverse-engineered the screw from BMW's own published patent drawings and 3D printed working replicas of both the fastener and the matching driver bit, first in plastic and then in metal.<ref name="tomshardware">{{Cite web |last=Tyson |first=Mark |date=2026-02-14 |title=iFixIt calls BMW's new anti-consumer security screws 'a logo-shaped middle finger to right to repair,' Adafruit 3D prints a solution |url=https://www.tomshardware.com/tech-industry/manufacturing/ifixit-calls-bmws-new-anti-consumer-security-screws-a-logo-shaped-middle-finger-to-right-to-repair-adafruit-3d-prints-a-solution-bmws-connector-reverse-engineered-using-patent-filing-as-a-design-blueprint |website=Tom's Hardware |access-date=2026-03-26}}</ref> The driver bit design consists of two raised quarter-circle lugs spaced 180 degrees apart, sized to engage the recessed sectors while clearing the separating bridges.

On January 17, 2026, YouTube creator Buildy Bryce published a short demonstrating a 3D-printed tool compatible with the patented fastener. The video also showed that a low-tech bypass is possible: wedging two standard flathead screwdrivers into the flush quadrants and twisting.<ref name="buildybryce">{{Cite web |last=Buildy Bryce |date=2026-01-17 |title=Hacking BMW's patented bolt with 3D printing |url=https://youtube.com/shorts/huR9Uo2XBK8 |website=YouTube |access-date=2026-03-26}}</ref>

Jalopnik's coverage noted that 20% of U.S. auto parts sales go to consumers doing their own repairs, and that 30% of drivers surveyed in early 2024 reported an inclination toward self-repair.<ref name="jalopnik" />

== See also ==

* [[BMW]]
* [[Right to Repair]]

== References ==
{{reflist}}

[[Category:BMW]]
[[Category:2025 incidents]]
[[Category:Right to repair]]
[[Category:Repairability]]

Category:Booking.com

2026-04-16T13:54:19Z

PixelRunner: Created page with "Articles related to Booking.com"

Articles related to [[Booking.com]]

Category:Axis Bank

2026-04-16T13:53:59Z

PixelRunner: Created page with "Articles related to Axis Bank"

Articles related to [[Axis Bank]]

Category:Australia

2026-04-16T13:53:36Z

PixelRunner: Created page with "Articles related to Australia"

Articles related to [[Australia]]

Category:Milan Digital Audio

2026-04-16T13:53:00Z

PixelRunner: Created page with "Articles related to Milan Digital Audio"

Articles related to [[Milan Digital Audio]]

Category:Wegmans

2026-04-16T13:52:29Z

PixelRunner: Created page with "Articles related to Wegmans"

Articles related to [[Wegmans]]

Category:Wacom

2026-04-16T13:51:59Z

PixelRunner: Created page with "Articles related to Wacom"

Articles related to [[Wacom]]

Category:VitalSource

2026-04-16T13:51:43Z

PixelRunner: Created page with "Articles related to VitalSource"

Articles related to [[VitalSource]]

Category:Techtronic Industries

2026-04-16T13:51:25Z

PixelRunner: Created page with "Articles related to Techtronic Industries"

Articles related to [[Techtronic Industries]]

Category:Steam

2026-04-16T13:50:54Z

PixelRunner: Created page with "Articles related to Steam"

Articles related to [[Steam]]

Category:Sandisk

2026-04-16T13:50:38Z

PixelRunner: Created page with "Articles related to Sandisk"

Articles related to [[Sandisk]]

Category:Red Sky Labs

2026-04-16T13:50:03Z

PixelRunner: Created page with "Articles related to Red Sky Labs"

Articles related to [[Red Sky Labs]]

Category:IP Biometrix

2026-04-16T13:49:18Z

PixelRunner: Created page with "Articles related to IP Biometrix"

Articles related to [[IP Biometrix]]

Category:Halfords Limited

2026-04-16T13:49:00Z

PixelRunner: Created page with "Articles related to Halfords Limited"

Articles related to [[Halfords Limited]]

Category:Haier

2026-04-16T13:48:45Z

PixelRunner: Created page with "Articles related to Haier"

Articles related to [[Haier]]

Category:2025 bankruptcies

2026-04-16T13:45:51Z

PixelRunner: Created page with "Incidents that happened in 2025"

Incidents that happened in 2025

Category:2014 incidents

2026-04-16T13:45:37Z

PixelRunner: Created page with "Incidents that happened in 2014"

Incidents that happened in 2014

Category:2012 incidents

2026-04-16T13:45:24Z

PixelRunner: Created page with "Incidents that happened in 2012"

Incidents that happened in 2012

Category:2010 incidents

2026-04-16T13:45:11Z

PixelRunner: Created page with "Incidents that happened in 2010"

Incidents that happened in 2010

Category:2009 incidents

2026-04-16T13:44:56Z

PixelRunner: Created page with "Incidents that happened in 2009"

Incidents that happened in 2009

Category:2001 incidents

2026-04-16T13:44:38Z

PixelRunner: Created page with "Incidents that happened in 2001"

Incidents that happened in 2001

Category:2000 incidents

2026-04-16T13:44:26Z

PixelRunner: Created page with "Incidents that happened in 2000"

Incidents that happened in 2000

Category:2013 incidents

2026-04-16T13:44:08Z

PixelRunner: Created page with "Incidents that happened in 2013"

Incidents that happened in 2013

Category:2011 incidents

2026-04-16T13:43:42Z

PixelRunner: Created page with "Incidents that happened in 2011"

Incidents that happened in 2011

Google Nest thermostat smart features disabled

2026-04-16T13:42:31Z

PixelRunner: fix category

{{IncidentCargo
|Company=Google, Nest
|StartDate=2025-10-25
|EndDate=
|Status=Active
|ProductLine=Nest Learning Thermostat
|Product=1st generation 2011, 2nd generation 2012, 2nd generation Europe version 2014
|ArticleType=Incident
|Type=Abandonware, Service Termination
|Description=Google is ending support for 1st/2nd generation Nest thermostats October 2025, removing app control and safety features despite working hardware.
}}

[[Google]] has announced the discontinuation of cloud-based support for first and second-generation [[Google Nest]] Learning Thermostats, affecting devices purchased between 2011-2014. While the thermostats will continue basic operation, all smart features and remote capabilities will be permanently disabled.

==Background==
Nest Labs launched the Nest Learning Thermostat in 2011, introducing smart thermostats to the mainstream market. The company was acquired by Google in 2014 for $3.2 billion. First and second-generation Nest thermostats were marketed as premium one-time purchases with cloud-based functionality as core features, including smartphone control, voice assistant integration, and home automation capabilities.

==The discontinuation announcement==
On April 25, 2025, Google officially announced that support would end for the following devices on October 25, 2025:<ref name="official">{{Cite web |title=Support changes to our earliest generation Nest Learning Thermostats |url=https://www.googlenestcommunity.com/t5/Blog/Support-changes-to-our-earliest-generation-Nest-Learning-Thermostats/ba-p/713068 |date=2025-04-25 |access-date=2025-07-13 |website=Google Nest Community |archive-url=http://web.archive.org/web/20260127215416/https://www.googlenestcommunity.com/t5/Blog/Support-changes-to-our-earliest-generation-Nest-Learning-Thermostats/ba-p/713068 |archive-date=27 Jan 2026}}</ref><ref name="google-announcement">[https://support.google.com/googlenest/answer/16233096 "Upcoming End of Support for Nest Learning Thermostats (1st and 2nd Gen) - Google Nest Help."] Google.com, ([https://web.archive.org/web/20260227051701/https://support.google.com/googlenest/answer/16233096 Archived])</ref>

*Nest Learning Thermostat (1st generation, 2011)
*Nest Learning Thermostat (2nd generation, 2012)
*Nest Learning Thermostat (2nd generation, Europe version, 2014)

===Features being discontinued===
After October 25, 2025, affected devices will lose:<ref name="official" /><ref name="google-announcement" />

*Remote control via Nest and Google Home apps
*Google Assistant and third-party voice assistant integration
*Home/Away Assist functionality
*Push notifications
*Software and security updates
*All cloud-based features and connected services

===Safety feature impact===
The discontinuation affects the Emergency Shutoff feature, which automatically shuts off heating systems when Nest Protect smoke detectors sense carbon monoxide.<ref name="emergency-shutoff">[https://support.google.com/googlenest/answer/9245889 "What you need for Emergency Shutoff to work - Google Nest Help."] Google.com, ([https://web.archive.org/web/20260121043913/https://support.google.com/googlenest/answer/9245889 Archived])</ref> Google has confirmed that "Nest Protects will also disconnect from the thermostat and Emergency Shut-off will no longer run."<ref name="google-announcement" />

===Remaining functionality===
Google states that basic thermostat functions accessible directly on the device will continue to work, including:<ref name="google-announcement" />

*Pre-set temperature schedules
*Manual temperature adjustments
*Mode switching (heat/cool)
*Auto-Schedule settings management

==Harm to consumers==
The discontinuation removes core features that were primary selling points when consumers purchased these devices. Users who built smart home systems around these thermostats face the loss of functionality they paid for, with no option for local control or open-source alternatives. The removal of the carbon monoxide safety shutoff feature presents particular concern for consumer safety.

==Company response and compensation==
Google cited the age of the hardware as the primary reason, stating it had become "increasingly challenging to continue to update these products."<ref name="official" /> The company offered limited-time discounts to affected customers:

*United States: $130 off 4th generation Nest Learning Thermostat
*Canada: $160 off 4th generation model
*Europe: 50% off Tado Smart Thermostat X Starter Kit<ref name="official" />

No options were provided for continuing use through open-source integrations, local control, or third-party services.

==Public response==
The announcement generated significant criticism from consumers and technology commentators. Carl T. Bergstrom summarized the sentiment: "We're Google, and we're going to brick your perfectly functional thermostat after buying the company that made it."<ref>{{Cite web |title=Carl T. Bergstrom on Bluesky |url=https://bsky.app/profile/carlbergstrom.com/post/3ltkvrz26tc2u |date=2025-07-09 |access-date=2025-07-13 |archive-url=http://web.archive.org/web/20251126232013/https://bsky.app/profile/carlbergstrom.com/post/3ltkvrz26tc2u |archive-date=26 Nov 2025}}</ref><ref name="chrome">{{Cite web |title=Google ends support for Nest Learning Thermostat Gen 1 & 2 |url=https://chromeunboxed.com/your-old-nest-thermostat-is-going-to-lose-app-control-later-this-year/ |date=2025-04-29 |access-date=2025-07-13 |website=Chrome Unboxed |archive-url=http://web.archive.org/web/20251128071758/https://chromeunboxed.com/your-old-nest-thermostat-is-going-to-lose-app-control-later-this-year/ |archive-date=28 Nov 2025}}</ref>

==Current status==
As of October 2025, the discontinuation happened. Affected consumers are advised to:

*Document current device functionality and integrations
*Ensure alternative carbon monoxide safety measures are in place before the cutoff date
*Save all communications from Google/Nest regarding the discontinuation
*Consider filing complaints with consumer protection agencies if appropriate
*A community driven open source project has been created.<ref>{{Cite web |title=No Longer Evil Thermostat |url=https://nolongerevil.com/ |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20260325163401/https://nolongerevil.com/ |archive-date=2026-03-25 |access-date=15 Apr 2026 |website=No Longer Evil}}</ref> This gives owners the ability to flash a custom firmware on to the Gen 1 and 2 devices. Currently a free account is required as the firmware redirects the devices to the projects own servers. A full release of the API code is planned to allow users to create their own servers. This process, of course, carries the risk of bricking the device during the flashing process. This initiative has been covered in an article on Toms Hardware Guide<ref>{{Cite web |last=Tyson |first=Mark |date=9 Nov 2025 |title=No Longer Evil Thermostat hack strips Google from Nest thermostat to heat your home better — open source project revives sunsetted hardware, gives more precise control |url=https://www.tomshardware.com/software/no-longer-evil-thermostat-heats-your-home-better-by-removing-google-revive-sunsetted-hardware-gain-more-precise-control-open-source |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20260226012907/https://www.tomshardware.com/software/no-longer-evil-thermostat-heats-your-home-better-by-removing-google-revive-sunsetted-hardware-gain-more-precise-control-open-source |archive-date=2026-02-26 |website=Tom's Hardware}}</ref>

==References==
{{Reflist}}

[[Category:Google]]
[[Category:Google Nest]]
[[Category:Smart home device obsolescence]]
[[Category:Cloud service dependency]]
[[Category:Remote deactivation]]
[[Category:Planned obsolescence]]
[[Category:Ownership revocation]]

Final Draft software activation

2026-04-16T13:36:57Z

PixelRunner: fix category

{{IncidentCargo
|Company=Final Draft
|StartDate=2025-01-15
|EndDate=
|Status=Unresolved
|ProductLine=
|Product=Final Draft 10
|ArticleType=Product
|Type=Forced Migration, Forced Obsolescence, Ownership
|Description=Owners of Final Draft 10 are unable to use their lifetime license as activation servers have been shutdown, with the alternative being a paid migration to Final Draft 13.
}}

Final Draft is an industry-standard screenwriting software. It announced in January 2025 that it was discontinuing activation services for Final Draft 10.

==Details of the change==
Final Draft announced they would discontinue activation and deactivation capabilities for Version 10 on June 30, 2025. This change means:<ref>[[:File:Final Draft e-mail notice.pdf]] ([https://megalodon.jp/2026-0326-0242-41/https://consumerrights.wiki:443/images/1/14/Final_Draft_e-mail_notice.pdf Archived])</ref>

*Users can't reinstall the software on new computers;
*Software can't be reactivated after operating system updates;
*Technical support ends February 1, 2025;
*Existing installs will continue working until the computer or operating system is updated.

The company offered users an upgrade path to Version 13 at a reduced price of $59.99 (from $99.99) as a solution for affected users.

==Meaning for consumer rights==
This case shows key issues with modern consumer rights:

===Loss of perpetual-license rights===
While users bought perpetual licenses for Version 10, the deactivation of authentication servers effectively [[License euthanasia|removes their ability to use]] the software on new systems or after updates. This changes what was sold as a permanent purchase into a time-limited license, without explicit user agreement.

===Forced obsolescence===
The company's decision to disable Version 10's activation creates an artificial barrier to its continued use. The software remains functional on existing systems, and could theoretically continue running indefinitely. However, the authentication requirement forces users toward paid upgrades, regardless of their needs or the software's actual functionality. Users who paid for a perpetual license may not be able to update their systems if they wish to continue using it.

===Industry standard lock-in===
Final Draft's position as the industry standard for screenwriting software means users face limited alternatives if they want to maintain compatibility with others in the industry. This market position worsens the impact of their licensing decisions on consumers.

==Broader implications==
This represents a growing trend in software licensing where companies can unilaterally alter the terms of the sale, taking away perpetual licenses through technical mechanisms rather than legal means. While the company cites security concerns and operating system compatibility, the core word-processing functions of the software still work, raising questions about the necessity of disabling activation.

==Alternatives==
A recent alternative for screenplays is the Markdown-like [https://fountain.io/ Fountain], an open standard supported by most screenwriting and production tools. However, Fountain cannot yet fully replace Final Draft files for production software, because text wrapping in Fountain is app-dependent, and page breaks are therefore not guaranteed to be consistent.

Some free and open-source multi-platform alternatives that one can use are [https://starc.app/ Story Architect] and [https://www.trelby.org/ Trelby], even though they may not fully replace Final Draft. Trelby supports Fountain as of Trelby version 2.4.<ref>https://fountain.io/apps/ ([http://web.archive.org/web/20260114074047/https://fountain.io/apps/ Archived])</ref>
==References==
{{reflist}}

[[Category:Incidents]]
[[Category:Remote deactivation]]
[[Category:Planned obsolescence]]
[[Category:Ownership revocation]]

Category:Dictionary.com

2026-04-16T13:17:55Z

PixelRunner: Created page with "List of articles related to Dictionary.com"

List of articles related to [[Dictionary.com]]

Category:Derrimut Gym

2026-04-16T13:17:24Z

PixelRunner: Created page with "List of articles related to Derrimut Gym"

List of articles related to [[Derrimut Gym]]

Category:Clover Network, Inc.

2026-04-16T13:16:50Z

PixelRunner: Created page with "List of articles related to Clover Network, Inc."

List of articles related to [[Clover Network, Inc.]]

Category:Chevron

2026-04-16T13:14:33Z

PixelRunner: Created page with "List of articles related to Chevron"

List of articles related to [[Chevron]]

Category:Change.org

2026-04-16T13:13:57Z

PixelRunner: Created page with "List of articles related to Change.org"

List of articles related to [[Change.org]]

Category:Capital One Shopping

2026-04-16T13:13:18Z

PixelRunner: Created page with "List of articles related to Capital One Shopping"

List of articles related to [[Capital One Shopping]]

Category:Canva

2026-04-16T13:12:26Z

PixelRunner: Created page with "List of articles related to Canva"

List of articles related to [[Canva]]

Category:Razer

2026-04-16T13:11:53Z

PixelRunner: Created page with "List of articles related to Razer"

List of articles related to [[Razer]]

Category:BlackVue

2026-04-16T13:11:11Z

PixelRunner: Created page with "This is a list of articles related to BlackVue"

This is a list of articles related to [[BlackVue]]

Colorado SB26-090 critical infrastructure exemption

2026-04-16T13:06:42Z

PixelRunner: fix category

{{#seo:
|title=Colorado SB26-090 Critical Infrastructure Exemption - Consumer Rights Wiki
|description=Colorado SB26-090 exempts "critical infrastructure" IT equipment from the state's right to repair law, letting manufacturers self-classify products.
}}

'''Colorado SB26-090''' is a 2026 bill that would exempt "information technology equipment intended for use in critical infrastructure" from Colorado's [[Right to Repair|Consumer Right to Repair Digital Electronic Equipment Act]] law (HB24-1121), which is a broad peice of right to repair legislation that implemented right to repair without the business-to-business exemptions found in other states' repair laws, and which deliberately excluded a critical infrastructure carve-out.<ref name="fighttorepair">{{Cite web |url=https://fighttorepair.substack.com/p/colorados-right-to-repair-law-is |title=Colorado's Right to Repair Law Is The Strongest Yet. Here's Why. |publisher=Fight to Repair (Repair Association) |date=2024}}</ref>

Danny Katz, executive director of CoPIRG, described the existing Colorado law as giving Colorado residents "the broadest repair rights in the country", and noted the potential for bill SB26-090 to roll back these rights.<ref name="wired">{{Cite web |url=https://www.wired.com/story/tech-companies-are-trying-to-neuter-colorados-landmark-right-to-repair-law/ |title=Tech Companies Are Trying to Neuter Colorado's Landmark Right-to-Repair Law |author=Boone Ashworth |publisher=Wired |date=April 2, 2026}}</ref> Bill SB26-090 borrows its definition of "critical infrastructure" from the USA PATRIOT Act (42 U.S.C. 5195c(e)), a definition that covers 16 federal sectors including communications, healthcare, food & agriculture, financial services, and information technology.<ref name="cisa">{{Cite web |url=https://www.cisa.gov/topics/critical-infrastructure-security-and-resilience/critical-infrastructure-sectors |title=Critical Infrastructure Sectors |publisher=Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA)}}</ref> The primary contention around the adoption of this definition relates to its scope, as the bill does not define "information technology equipment", which Katz said "leaves it up to the manufacturers to determine which items they will need to provide repair tools and parts to owners and independent repairers and which ones they don't".<ref name="wired" />

==Colorado's existing right to repair laws==

Colorado has passed three right to repair laws in four years, making it one of the most active states in the wider right to repair movement.

In 2022, Colorado passed '''HB22-1031''', protecting the right to repair powered wheelchairs.<ref name="leg-hb22">{{Cite web |url=https://leg.colorado.gov/bills/hb22-1031 |title=HB22-1031: Wheelchair Right to Repair |publisher=Colorado General Assembly}}</ref> The following year, '''HB23-1011''' made Colorado the first state to pass an agricultural equipment right to repair law.<ref name="leg-hb23">{{Cite web |url=https://leg.colorado.gov/bills/hb23-1011 |title=HB23-1011: Agricultural Equipment Right to Repair |publisher=Colorado General Assembly}}</ref><ref name="ifixit-sb090" />

The most consequential was '''HB24-1121''', the Consumer Right to Repair Digital Electronic Equipment Act. The act requires the manufacturers of digital electronic equipment manufactured after July 1, 2021 to provide independent repair providers and owners with parts, tools, documentation, and schematics on fair and reasonable terms.<ref name="proskauer">{{Cite web |url=https://www.proskauer.com/blog/colorado-expands-right-to-repair-law |title=Colorado Expands "Right-to-Repair" Law |publisher=Proskauer Rose LLP |date=2024}}</ref> "Fair and reasonable" is defined as costs "equivalent to the most favorable costs and terms that the manufacturer offers to an authorized repair provider." The law also bans [[parts pairing]].<ref name="proskauer" />

The act was sponsored by Representatives Brianna Titone and Steven Woodrow, as well as Senators Jeff Bridges and Nick Hinrichsen, it passed the House 39-18 and the Senate 21-13.<ref name="leg-hb24">{{Cite web |url=https://leg.colorado.gov/bills/hb24-1121 |title=HB24-1121: Consumer Right to Repair Digital Electronic Equipment |publisher=Colorado General Assembly}}</ref> Governor Polis signed it on May 28, 2024, with an effective date of January 1, 2026.<ref name="proskauer" />

HB24-1121 exempts motor vehicles, medical devices (except powered wheelchairs), construction and energy-related equipment, fire alarm systems, safety communications equipment, and internet/video/voice routers from its right to repair provisions,<ref name="proskauer" /> and treats violations as deceptive trade practices.<ref name="leg-hb24" />

What set HB24-1121 apart from every other state repair law was its scope. By way of comparison to other states, Oregon, New York, California, and Minnesota's right to repair laws all contained exemptions for business-to-business equipment from the start, whereas HB24-1121 contained no such exemptions.<ref name="fighttorepair" /> This meant that enterprise networking hardware, servers, and business infrastructure were all subject to the same repair mandates as consumer phones and laptops, unless they independently fell within another exemption.<ref name="fighttorepair" /> Minnesota's law specifically included a "critical infrastructure" exemption; Colorado deliberately excluded one.<ref name="fighttorepair" /> SB26-090 would add back the same type of critical infrastructure carve-out that Colorado excluded when writing HB24-1121.<ref name="fighttorepair" /><ref name="wired" />

iFixit CEO Kyle Wiens described HB24-1121 as Colorado "taking a search-and-destroy approach to repair monopolies."<ref name="fighttorepair" />

==SB26-090: the bill==

SB26-090, titled "Exempt Critical Infrastructure from Right to Repair," was introduced on February 10, 2026.<ref name="leg-sb090">{{Cite web |url=https://leg.colorado.gov/bills/SB26-090 |title=SB26-090: Exempt Critical Infrastructure from Right to Repair |publisher=Colorado General Assembly}}</ref> Its sponsors are Senator John Carson (R-30), Senator Marc Snyder (D-12), and Representative Tony Hartsook (R-44), the House Minority Caucus Chair.<ref name="leg-sb090" />

The bill adds a single sentence to Colorado Revised Statutes sections 6-1-1502 and 6-1-1504: "Nothing in this part 15 applies to information technology equipment that is intended for use in critical infrastructure."<ref name="leg-sb090" />

On April 2, 2026, the Senate Business, Labor, and Technology Committee voted 5-0 to advance the bill to the Committee of the Whole.<ref name="leg-sb090" /><ref name="wired" /> Second reading was scheduled for April 7, 2026.<ref name="leg-sb090" /> The bill still needs full Senate and House floor votes before taking effect.<ref name="wired" />

==The "critical infrastructure" definition==

The bill defines critical infrastructure as "systems and assets, whether physical or virtual, so vital to the United States that the incapacity or destruction of such systems and assets would have a debilitating impact on security, national economic security, national public health or safety, or any combination of those matters."<ref name="patriot-act">{{Cite web |url=https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/5195c |title=42 U.S.C. 5195c - Critical infrastructures protection |publisher=Legal Information Institute, Cornell Law School |access-date=2026-04-03}} Subsection (e) defines "critical infrastructure." Originally enacted as Section 1016 of the USA PATRIOT Act of 2001.</ref> This language comes directly from the USA PATRIOT Act of 2001, and was later incorporated into Presidential Policy Directive 21 (PPD-21), issued by President Obama in 2013.<ref name="ppd21">{{Cite web |url=https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-press-office/2013/02/12/presidential-policy-directive-critical-infrastructure-security-and-resil |title=Presidential Policy Directive -- Critical Infrastructure Security and Resilience |publisher=The White House |date=February 12, 2013}}</ref>

Under PPD-21, CISA designates 16 critical infrastructure sectors: Chemical, Commercial Facilities, Communications, Critical Manufacturing, Dams, Defense Industrial Base, Emergency Services, Energy, Financial Services, Food & Agriculture, Government Facilities, Healthcare & Public Health, Information Technology, Nuclear Reactors/Materials/Waste, Transportation Systems, and Water & Wastewater Systems.<ref name="cisa" />

The practical scope of this definition became clear during COVID-19. CISA's "essential critical infrastructure workers" guidance expanded the functional definition to include automotive repair, retail groceries, call centers, and logistics.<ref name="cisa-covid">{{Cite web |url=https://www.cisa.gov/sites/default/files/publications/essential_critical_infrastructure_workforce-guidance_v4.1_508.pdf |title=Guidance on the Essential Critical Infrastructure Workforce |publisher=CISA |date=August 2020}}</ref> Under SB26-090's logic, a $20 network switch used in a federal office building could be "critical infrastructure" A Dell laptop at the Pentagon. A printer at a hospital. The bill's definition doesn't draw a line between a server running a power grid and a network switch on a desk.

The bill also does not define "information technology equipment." Gay Gordon-Byrne, executive director of the [[Repair Association]], testified at the committee hearing: "I can point out at least five problems with the bill as drafted. The definition of critical infrastructure is completely inadequate. The definition that has been proposed in this bill is not even a definition."<ref name="wired" />

===Manufacturer self-classification===

The bill uses the phrase "intended for use in critical infrastructure" but doesn't specify who decides whether a product meets that threshold and does not define "information technology equipment."<ref name="wired" />

Nathan Proctor, leader of PIRG's national right to repair campaign, called the framing cynical: "The 'information technology' and 'critical infrastructure' thing is as cynical as you can possibly be about it. It sounds scary to lawmakers, but it just means the internet."<ref name="wired" />

==Industry lobbying==

===Cisco===

[[Cisco]] is the primary corporate backer of SB26-090. iFixit described the company as "the biggest voice in support" of the exemption.<ref name="ifixit-sb090" /> Consumer-grade internet/video/voice routers are already exempt from HB24-1121.<ref name="proskauer" /> SB26-090 would create an additional, broader exemption covering enterprise networking equipment.<ref name="ifixit-sb090" />

Cisco's Non-Entitlement Policy states that "unauthorized repair voids the Cisco Warranty Entitlement" & that the company "does not offer or provide any replacement or spare parts to third-party service repair businesses."<ref name="cisco-nep">{{Cite web |url=https://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/products/warranties/warranty-doc-c99-740959.html |title=Non-Entitlement Policy v2.0 |publisher=Cisco Systems}}</ref> Third-party repairs are listed as "grounds for Cisco to cancel service or warranty support."<ref name="cisco-nep" /> The [[Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act]] (15 U.S.C. Section 2302(c)) prohibits manufacturers from conditioning warranty coverage on the use of a specific service provider or brand of replacement part.<ref name="mmwa-statute">{{Cite web |url=https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/15/2302 |title=15 U.S.C. 2302 - Rules governing contents of warranties |publisher=Legal Information Institute, Cornell Law School |access-date=2026-04-03}} Subsection (c) prohibits conditioning warranty on use of a specific service provider or brand of replacement part.</ref>

At the committee hearing, a Cisco representative stated: "Cisco supports SB-90. While it appreciates the arguments offered in favor of the right to repair, not all digital technology devices are equal."<ref name="wired" />

===IBM===

IBM is also supporting the bill, and has a general stance against the extension of right to repair to enterprise devices. An IBM spokesperson told Wired: "IBM supports right-to-repair policies that empower consumers while protecting cybersecurity, intellectual property, and critical infrastructure. Given the critical and often sensitive nature of enterprise-level products, any legislation should be clearly scoped to consumer devices."<ref name="wired" />

===Lobbying registrations===

The Colorado Secretary of State's Online Lobby System lists 68 lobbying registrations on SB26-090: 40 supporting, 11 opposing, 15 monitoring, and 2 other.<ref name="sos-lobby-system">Colorado Secretary of State, Online Lobby System. 68 lobbying registrations on SB26-090. To verify: go to the Colorado Secretary of State lobby registration search at https://www.sos.state.co.us/lobby, click "Bill Search," enter "SB26-090" as the bill number, and select the 2025-2026 session. The search returns all registered lobbyists, their clients, and their positions (Supporting, Opposing, Monitoring, etc.). Accessed April 3, 2026.</ref>

[[File:sos-sb26090-all-registrations-p1.png|thumb|300px|Colorado Secretary of State Online Lobby System search results for SB26-090, page 1 of 4, showing 68 lobbying registrations.]]

'''Twenty of the 40 supporting registrations (50%) come from lobbyists registered under two different clients on the same bill.'''<ref name="sos-lobby-system" /> HB Strategies registered eight lobbyists for IBM on February 11, 2026: Erin Goff, Micki Hackenberger, HB Strategies (the firm itself), Carrie Hackenberger, J. Andrew Green & Assoc., Lisa LaBriola, Elizabeth Lo, and Kevin Neimond.<ref name="sos-lobby-system" /> Nineteen days later, on March 2, the same eight registered for the Colorado Springs Chamber and EDC.<ref name="sos-lobby-system" /> That produced 16 registrations from one firm.

[[File:sos-ibm-lobbyists.png|thumb|300px|Colorado Secretary of State lobbying registrations for IBM on SB26-090, showing eight lobbyists from HB Strategies registered February 11, 2026.]]

[[File:sos-cospr-chamber-lobbyists.png|thumb|300px|Colorado Secretary of State lobbying registrations for the Colorado Springs Chamber and EDC on SB26-090, showing the same eight HB Strategies lobbyists registered March 2, 2026.]]

Josh Hanfling and Sewald Hanfling Public Affairs registered for both Cisco & the Colorado Technology Association, adding four more duplicate registrations.<ref name="sos-lobby-system" /> Jeffrey Weist & Weist Capitol Group, Inc. registered on the same day (February 18) for two separate cable industry trade groups with nearly identical names: the Colorado Cable Telecommunications Association, and the Colorado Cable Television Association.<ref name="sos-lobby-system" /> Three clusters of double-dipping: HB Strategies (16 registrations from 8 names across two clients), Sewald Hanfling (4 registrations from 2 names across two clients), & Weist (2 clients with almost the same name on the same day).

The registrations arrived in waves. '''Cisco's in-house lobbyist Joseph Lee registered on February 10, the same day the bill was introduced.'''<ref name="sos-lobby-system" /> '''IBM's eight HB Strategies lobbyists registered the next morning.''' A lobbyist can't file a position on a bill that hasn't been introduced; same-day and next-day registrations from two separate companies indicate both had advance knowledge of the bill before it was publicly filed. Cisco's outside firm (Sewald Hanfling), the cable associations, and the Denver Metro Chamber registered between February 16 and 18. The Colorado Springs Chamber added its matching HB Strategies team on March 2. The Colorado Technology Association added Sewald Hanfling on March 5-6. TechNet registered five lobbyists on March 12. The Colorado Chamber of Commerce was last, 44 days after introduction, on March 26.<ref name="sos-lobby-system" />

===Lobbying spending===

At least $362,735 in known lobbying spending backs this exemption.<ref name="soda-dataset">{{Cite web |url=https://data.colorado.gov/Legislative/Professional-Lobbyist-Income-in-Colorado/dxfk-9ifj |title=Professional Lobbyist Income in Colorado (browsable dataset) |publisher=Colorado Secretary of State |access-date=2026-04-03}} To reproduce this total: query the SODA API at https://data.colorado.gov/resource/dxfk-9ifj.json using <code>$select=sum(incomeamount)&$where=upper(clientname) like '%CISCO%' AND fiscalyear in('2024-2025','2025-2026')</code> for each client (Cisco, IBM, Colorado Technology Association, Colorado Springs Chamber), then add the four results. The dataset ID is dxfk-9ifj. The individual queries and their results are cited in the table below.</ref> Four of the ten supporting organizations have spending data on file with the Colorado Secretary of State. The other six (TechNet, Denver Metro Chamber, Colorado Chamber, both cable associations, and FGR Hub) don't appear in the database during this period, & March & April 2026 filings are not yet available.

{| class="wikitable"
|+Lobbying payments from SB26-090 supporting organizations, October 2024 through February 2026
|-
!Organization!!Total paid to Colorado lobbyists!!Lobbying firm
|-
|Cisco||$127,854<ref name="soda-cisco">{{Cite web |url=https://data.colorado.gov/Legislative/Professional-Lobbyist-Income-in-Colorado/dxfk-9ifj |title=Professional Lobbyist Income in Colorado: Cisco Systems |publisher=Colorado Secretary of State |access-date=2026-04-03}} To verify via the SODA API, query: <code>https://data.colorado.gov/resource/dxfk-9ifj.json?$select=sum(incomeamount)&$where=upper(clientname) like '%25CISCO%25' AND fiscalyear in('2024-2025','2025-2026')</code></ref>||Sewald Hanfling Public Affairs
|-
|Colorado Technology Association||$116,000<ref name="soda-cta">{{Cite web |url=https://data.colorado.gov/Legislative/Professional-Lobbyist-Income-in-Colorado/dxfk-9ifj |title=Professional Lobbyist Income in Colorado: Colorado Technology Association via Sewald Hanfling |publisher=Colorado Secretary of State |access-date=2026-04-03}} To verify via the SODA API, query: <code>https://data.colorado.gov/resource/dxfk-9ifj.json?$select=sum(incomeamount)&$where=upper(lobbyistname) like '%25SEWALD HANFLING%25' AND upper(clientname) like '%25COLORADO TECHNOLOGY%25' AND fiscalyear in('2024-2025','2025-2026')</code></ref>||Sewald Hanfling Public Affairs
|-
|IBM||$74,570<ref name="soda-ibm">{{Cite web |url=https://data.colorado.gov/Legislative/Professional-Lobbyist-Income-in-Colorado/dxfk-9ifj |title=Professional Lobbyist Income in Colorado: IBM |publisher=Colorado Secretary of State |access-date=2026-04-03}} To verify via the SODA API, query: <code>https://data.colorado.gov/resource/dxfk-9ifj.json?$select=sum(incomeamount)&$where=upper(clientname) like '%25IBM%25' AND fiscalyear in('2024-2025','2025-2026')</code></ref>||HB Strategies + in-house
|-
|Colorado Springs Chamber and EDC||$44,311<ref name="soda-cospr-hb">{{Cite web |url=https://data.colorado.gov/Legislative/Professional-Lobbyist-Income-in-Colorado/dxfk-9ifj |title=Professional Lobbyist Income in Colorado: Colorado Springs Chamber via HB Strategies |publisher=Colorado Secretary of State |access-date=2026-04-03}} To verify via the SODA API, query: <code>https://data.colorado.gov/resource/dxfk-9ifj.json?$select=sum(incomeamount)&$where=upper(lobbyistname) like '%25HB STRATEGIES%25' AND upper(clientname) like '%25COLORADO SPRINGS CHAMBER%25' AND fiscalyear in('2024-2025','2025-2026')</code></ref><ref name="soda-cospr-weaver">{{Cite web |url=https://data.colorado.gov/Legislative/Professional-Lobbyist-Income-in-Colorado/dxfk-9ifj |title=Professional Lobbyist Income in Colorado: Colorado Springs Chamber via Weaver Strategies |publisher=Colorado Secretary of State |access-date=2026-04-03}} To verify via the SODA API, query: <code>https://data.colorado.gov/resource/dxfk-9ifj.json?$select=sum(incomeamount)&$where=upper(lobbyistname) like '%25WEAVER%25' AND upper(clientname) like '%25COLORADO SPRINGS%25' AND fiscalyear='2025-2026'</code></ref>||HB Strategies + Weaver Strategies
|-
|'''Total'''||'''$362,735'''||
|}

Cisco paid Sewald Hanfling $6,500 per month for at least 14 of the 15 months between October 2024 and December 2025. '''In January 2026, the payment jumped to $7,500; SB26-090 was introduced on February 10.'''<ref name="soda-cisco" /><ref name="leg-sb090" />

[[File:soda-cisco-retainer-raise.png|thumb|300px|SODA API response showing Cisco's monthly payments to Sewald Hanfling Public Affairs, $6,500 per month through December 2025, rising to $7,500 in January 2026.]]

IBM paid HB Strategies $72,500 in 13 payments between October 2024 and February 2026. IBM's in-house lobbyist Alexi Madon reported another $2,069.76 over three months.<ref name="soda-ibm" />

The Colorado Technology Association paid $116,000 to Sewald Hanfling, the same firm Cisco pays.<ref name="soda-cta" /> The Colorado Springs Chamber and EDC paid $44,311 split between HB Strategies and Weaver Strategies.<ref name="soda-cospr-hb" /><ref name="soda-cospr-weaver" />

Micki Hackenberger, who runs HB Strategies, reported $510,922.50 in personal lobbying income for the year ending June 2025.<ref name="sos-hackenberger">Colorado Secretary of State, Online Lobby System, cumulative disclosure statement for Micki M. Hackenberger, FY 2024-2025, filed July 14, 2025. To verify: go to https://www.sos.state.co.us/lobby, click "Lobbyist Search," enter "Hackenberger" as last name, open her profile, and view the cumulative disclosure statement for FY 2024-2025. Accessed April 3, 2026.</ref>

[[File:hackenberger.png|thumb|300px|Colorado Secretary of State cumulative disclosure statement showing Micki Hackenberger reported $510,922.50 in lobbying income for the year ending June 2025, filed July 14, 2025.]]

Hackenberger also personally donated to four of the five SB26-090 sponsors and committee members who received lobbying network money: $400 to Catlin, $450 to Hartsook, $225 to Snyder, & $450 to Carson.<ref name="tracer-hackenberger-donations">Colorado TRACER, RecordIDs 6851545, 6856570, 6911305, 7060021: donations from Micki Hackenberger to Catlin ($400, Sep 6 2024), Hartsook ($450, Sep 18 2024), Snyder ($225, Nov 17 2024), and Carson ($450, Sep 25 2025). To verify: go to https://tracer.sos.colorado.gov, click "Contribution Search," enter "Hackenberger" as Contributor Last Name, and search within 2024-01-01 to 2025-12-31. Accessed April 3, 2026.</ref> The only recipient she didn't donate to was Danielson, who received $3,800 from Sewald Hanfling instead.<ref name="tracer-sewald-hanfling-danielson" />

J. Andrew Green & Assoc. is registered as IBM's lobbyist on SB26-090, but the state income database shows zero payments from IBM to Green.<ref name="soda-green-ibm">{{Cite web |url=https://data.colorado.gov/Legislative/Professional-Lobbyist-Income-in-Colorado/dxfk-9ifj |title=Professional Lobbyist Income in Colorado: J. Andrew Green from IBM (no records) |publisher=Colorado Secretary of State |access-date=2026-04-03}} To verify via the SODA API, query: <code>https://data.colorado.gov/resource/dxfk-9ifj.json?$where=upper(lobbyistname) like '%25GREEN%25' AND upper(lobbyistname) like '%25ANDREW%25' AND upper(clientname) like '%25IBM%25'</code> This returns an empty array, confirming zero payments.</ref> Green reports $14,840 from HB Strategies in January 2026.<ref name="soda-green-hb">{{Cite web |url=https://data.colorado.gov/Legislative/Professional-Lobbyist-Income-in-Colorado/dxfk-9ifj |title=Professional Lobbyist Income in Colorado: J. Andrew Green from HB Strategies |publisher=Colorado Secretary of State |access-date=2026-04-03}} To verify via the SODA API, query: <code>https://data.colorado.gov/resource/dxfk-9ifj.json?$where=upper(lobbyistname) like '%25GREEN%25' AND upper(lobbyistname) like '%25ANDREW%25' AND upper(clientname) like '%25HB STRAT%25'</code></ref> HB Strategies collects from both IBM and the Colorado Springs Chamber, then subcontracts Green from that pool.

The five organizations opposing the bill (CoPIRG, Eco-Cycle, Repair.org, the Digital Right to Repair Coalition, and NFIB) have zero disclosed lobbying spending in the same database during 2024-2026.<ref name="soda-dataset" />

===Campaign donations===

Lobbyists and firms registered to support SB26-090 donated a total of $15,725 to the bill's three sponsors and five committee members between 2024 and early 2026.<ref name="tracer-sewald-to-legislators">Colorado TRACER contribution search: donations from Sewald Hanfling employees to SB26-090 sponsors and committee members, 2024-2026. To verify: go to https://tracer.sos.colorado.gov, click "Contribution Search," enter "Sewald" or "Hanfling" as Contributor Last Name, and search within the date range 2024-01-01 to 2026-12-31. Then filter results by recipient for each SB26-090 sponsor and committee member. TRACER bulk data is also available for download at https://tracer.sos.colorado.gov/PublicSite/DataDownload.aspx. Accessed April 3, 2026.</ref><ref name="tracer-brandeberry-to-legislators">Colorado TRACER contribution search: donations from Brandeberry McKenna employees to SB26-090 sponsors and committee members, 2024-2026. To verify: go to https://tracer.sos.colorado.gov, click "Contribution Search," enter "Brandeberry" or "McKenna" as Contributor Last Name, and search within 2024-01-01 to 2026-12-31. Accessed April 3, 2026.</ref><ref name="tracer-hackenberger-to-legislators">Colorado TRACER contribution search: donations from Micki Hackenberger to SB26-090 sponsors and committee members, 2024-2026. To verify: go to https://tracer.sos.colorado.gov, click "Contribution Search," enter "Hackenberger" as Contributor Last Name, and search within 2024-01-01 to 2026-12-31. Accessed April 3, 2026.</ref>

On December 19, 2025, Josh Hanfling of Sewald Hanfling Public Affairs donated $450 to the Committee to Elect Marc Snyder.<ref name="tracer-hanfling-snyder">Colorado TRACER, RecordID 7171526: $450 donation from Joshua Hanfling to Committee to Elect Marc Snyder, December 19, 2025. To verify: go to https://tracer.sos.colorado.gov, click "Contribution Search," enter "Hanfling" as Contributor Last Name and "Snyder" as Committee Name, and search within 2025-01-01 to 2026-12-31. Accessed April 3, 2026.</ref> Snyder sponsored SB26-090 53 days later. Cisco pays Hanfling's firm $7,500 per month, and Hanfling is registered as Cisco's lobbyist on the bill.<ref name="soda-cisco" /><ref name="sos-lobby-system" /> The donation amount is small; the timeline connecting Cisco's lobbyist to a bill sponsor weeks before introduction is the pattern.

[[File:marcsnyder.png|thumb|300px|Colorado TRACER filing showing a $450 donation from Joshua Hanfling (Sewald Hanfling Public Affairs) to the Committee to Elect Marc Snyder, dated December 19, 2025.]]

{| class="wikitable"
|+Donations from SB26-090 lobbying network to sponsors and committee members
|-
!Firm!!SB26-090 client(s)!!Total!!Recipients
|-
|Sewald Hanfling Public Affairs||Cisco, CO Tech Assn||$6,225<ref name="tracer-sewald-to-legislators" />||Danielson, Carson, Snyder, Hartsook, Liston
|-
|Brandeberry McKenna Public Affairs||CO Springs Chamber||$3,650<ref name="tracer-brandeberry-to-legislators" />||Danielson, Carson, Snyder, Liston, Catlin
|-
|HB Strategies / Husch Blackwell||IBM, CO Springs Chamber||$3,575<ref name="tracer-hackenberger-to-legislators" /><ref name="tracer-hbs-employees">Colorado TRACER contribution search: donations from Goff, Neimond, Lo (Husch Blackwell Strategies) to SB26-090 legislators, 2024-2026. To verify: go to https://tracer.sos.colorado.gov, click "Contribution Search," and search each name individually: "Goff" + "Erin", "Neimond" + "Kevin", "Lo" + "Elizabeth" as Contributor Last/First Name, within 2024-01-01 to 2026-12-31. Accessed April 3, 2026.</ref>||Carson, Snyder, Hartsook, Catlin, Liston
|-
|Colorado Chamber PAC||(self)||$1,800<ref name="tracer-co-chamber-pac">Colorado TRACER contribution search: Colorado Chamber PAC donations to SB26-090 sponsors and committee members, 2023-2024. To verify: go to https://tracer.sos.colorado.gov, click "Contribution Search," enter "Colorado Chamber" as Committee Name under the "Committee Giving" tab, and search within 2023-01-01 to 2024-12-31. Accessed April 3, 2026.</ref>||Snyder, Hartsook, Liston, Catlin
|-
|J. Andrew Green & Assoc.||IBM (via HB subcontract)||$450<ref name="tracer-bulk-download">{{Cite web |url=https://tracer.sos.colorado.gov/PublicSite/DataDownload.aspx |title=TRACER Public Site: Data Download |publisher=Colorado Secretary of State, TRACER |access-date=2026-04-03}}</ref>||Carson
|-
|Weaver Strategies||CO Cable Television Assn||$450<ref name="tracer-weaver-morton">Colorado TRACER contribution search: Kachina Morton (Weaver Strategies) donations to SB26-090 sponsors, 2025. To verify: go to https://tracer.sos.colorado.gov, click "Contribution Search," enter "Morton" as Contributor Last Name and "Kachina" as First Name, and search within 2025-01-01 to 2025-12-31. Accessed April 3, 2026.</ref>||Carson, Liston
|}

R.D. Sewald and Josh Hanfling of Sewald Hanfling Public Affairs donated a combined $3,800 to committee chair Jessie Danielson across four transactions:<ref name="tracer-sewald-hanfling-danielson">Colorado TRACER contributions: R.D. Sewald and Joshua Hanfling to Jessie Danielson campaign, RecordIDs 6858173, 6858175, 7092122, 7186003. To verify: go to https://tracer.sos.colorado.gov, click "Contribution Search," enter "Danielson" as Committee Name, then search separately for "Sewald" and "Hanfling" as Contributor Last Name, within 2024-01-01 to 2025-12-31. Accessed April 3, 2026.</ref>

[[File:tracer-sewald-hanfling-to-danielson.png|thumb|300px|TRACER contribution search showing four donations from R.D. Sewald and Joshua Hanfling to the Jessie Danielson campaign committee, September 2024 through November 2025.]]

{| class="wikitable"
|-
!Date!!Donor!!Amount!!TRACER RecordID
|-
|September 24, 2024||R.D. Sewald||$450||6858173
|-
|September 24, 2024||Joshua Hanfling||$450||6858175
|-
|July 15, 2025||Joshua Hanfling||$1,450||7092122
|-
|November 4, 2025||R.D. Sewald||$1,450||7186003
|}

Danielson chairs the Senate Business, Labor, & Technology Committee. She voted to advance SB26-090 on April 2, 2026.<ref name="leg-sb090" />

On September 4, 2024, Jenifer Brandeberry and Julie McKenna of Brandeberry McKenna Public Affairs each donated $450 to committee member Senator Marc Catlin (RecordIDs 6851546, 6851547).<ref name="tracer-six-lobbyists-catlin">Colorado TRACER contributions: six lobbyists from HB Strategies and Brandeberry McKenna to Marc Catlin campaign, RecordIDs 6851545, 6851542, 6851535, 6851531, 6851546, 6851547. September 4-6, 2024. To verify: go to https://tracer.sos.colorado.gov, click "Contribution Search," enter "Catlin" as Committee Name, and search within 2024-09-01 to 2024-09-30. Then search each donor name: Hackenberger, Lo, Goff, Neimond, Brandeberry, McKenna. Accessed April 3, 2026.</ref> Two days later, on September 6, four employees of Husch Blackwell Strategies (the parent company behind HB Strategies) donated to Catlin on the same day: Micki Hackenberger ($400, RecordID 6851545), Elizabeth Lo ($250, RecordID 6851542), Erin Goff ($200, RecordID 6851535), and Kevin Neimond ($100, RecordID 6851531).<ref name="tracer-six-lobbyists-catlin" /> Six lobbyists from two firms, all later registered on SB26-090, donated $1,850 to the same senator within 48 hours. Catlin voted to advance the bill.<ref name="leg-sb090" />

[[File:tracer-six-lobbyists-to-catlin.png|thumb|300px|TRACER contribution search showing six lobbyists from HB Strategies and Brandeberry McKenna donated a combined $1,850 to the Marc Catlin campaign committee between September 4-6, 2024.]]

{| class="wikitable"
|+Donations from SB26-090 lobbying network by recipient
|-
!Legislator!!Role!!Total received!!Number of donors
|-
|Jessie Danielson||Committee Chair (D)||$4,300<ref name="tracer-bulk-download" />||4
|-
|Larry Liston||Committee Member (R)||$2,850||7
|-
|Marc Snyder||Bill Sponsor (D)||$2,525||7
|-
|Marc Catlin||Committee Member (R)||$2,300||7
|-
|John Carson||Bill Sponsor (R)||$1,900||7
|-
|Anthony Hartsook||Bill Sponsor (R)||$1,850||5
|-
|Nick Hinrichsen||Committee Vice Chair (D)||$0||0
|-
|Iman Jodeh||Committee Member (D)||$0||0
|}

Senators Nick Hinrichsen and Iman Jodeh received no donations from any SB26-090 lobbying firm, PAC, or corporate employee in the 2024-2026 TRACER data.<ref name="tracer-hinrichsen-zero">Colorado TRACER contribution search: no results for SB26-090 lobbying firms to Nick Hinrichsen, 2024-2026. To verify: go to https://tracer.sos.colorado.gov, click "Contribution Search," enter "Hinrichsen" as Committee Name, and search for each lobbying firm (Sewald, Hanfling, Hackenberger, Brandeberry, McKenna, Goff, Neimond, Lo) as Contributor Last Name within 2024-01-01 to 2026-12-31. All searches return zero results. Accessed April 3, 2026.</ref><ref name="tracer-jodeh-zero">Colorado TRACER contribution search: no results for SB26-090 lobbying firms to Iman Jodeh, 2024-2026. To verify: go to https://tracer.sos.colorado.gov, click "Contribution Search," enter "Jodeh" as Committee Name, and search for each lobbying firm (Sewald, Hanfling, Hackenberger, Brandeberry, McKenna, Goff, Neimond, Lo) as Contributor Last Name within 2024-01-01 to 2026-12-31. All searches return zero results. Accessed April 3, 2026.</ref> Both sit on the committee. Both voted to advance the bill.<ref name="leg-sb090" />

[[File:tracer-hinrichsen-zero-sewald.png|thumb|300px|TRACER search showing zero donations from Sewald Hanfling to the Hinrichsen campaign, 2024-2026.]]

===Colorado's lobbying disclosure system===

Colorado law doesn't require lobbyists to break down spending by bill.<ref name="crs-24-6-302">{{Cite web |url=https://law.justia.com/codes/colorado/title-24/article-6/part-3/section-24-6-302/ |title=Colorado Revised Statutes Section 24-6-302: Disclosure |publisher=Justia (mirror of Colorado Revised Statutes, 2023 edition) |access-date=2026-04-03}}</ref> The $362,735 figure is total client payments to their lobbyists during this period; the connection to SB26-090 comes from separate position filings where those same lobbyists registered as supporting the bill.<ref name="sos-lobby-system" /><ref name="soda-dataset" />

Three separate systems hold the data: the Secretary of State's Online Lobby System (lobbying registrations and bill positions), the Professional Lobbyist Income dataset on Colorado's open data portal (monthly payments from clients to lobbyists), and TRACER (campaign donations).<ref name="crs-24-6-302" /> Connecting a corporation's lobbying money to a specific vote requires pulling data from all three and matching records by hand.

[[File:crs-1-45-105-5-lobbyist-contributions.png|thumb|300px|C.R.S. 1-45-105.5, the Colorado statute restricting lobbyist campaign contributions during legislative sessions.]]

Colorado law allows lobbyists to donate to legislators they lobby, as long as the donation falls outside the regular legislative session (C.R.S. 1-45-105.5).<ref name="crs-1-45-105-5">{{Cite web |url=https://law.justia.com/codes/colorado/title-1/article-45/section-1-45-105-5/ |title=Colorado Revised Statutes Section 1-45-105.5: Contributions from Lobbyists |publisher=Justia (mirror of Colorado Revised Statutes, 2023 edition) |access-date=2026-04-03}}</ref> SB25-148, a bill to ban lobbyist donations to legislators year-round, was killed by the Senate Committee on State, Veterans, and Military Affairs in March 2025.<ref name="leg-sb25148">{{Cite web |url=https://leg.colorado.gov/bills/sb25-148 |title=SB25-148: Concerning Lobbyist Contributions to Candidates |publisher=Colorado General Assembly}}</ref> Twelve months later, SB26-090's lobbyists had donated $15,725 to the bill's sponsors & committee members.<ref name="tracer-sewald-to-legislators" /><ref name="tracer-brandeberry-to-legislators" /><ref name="tracer-hackenberger-to-legislators" />

===Cybersecurity===

Manufacturers backing SB26-090 argue that sharing diagnostic tools, firmware, and schematics for enterprise infrastructure could enable bad actors to exploit vulnerabilities.<ref name="wired" /> iFixit CEO Kyle Wiens testified at the hearing: "There's a general principle in cybersecurity that obscurity is not security. The money that's behind the scenes, that's what's driving the bill."<ref name="wired" />

Cybersecurity researchers directly dispute the manufacturer framing. Security researcher Billy Rios, and threat researcher Andrew Brandt, spoke against the exemption on the Securepairs podcast.<ref name="ifixit-sb090">{{Cite web |url=https://www.ifixit.com/News/116447/a-new-colorado-bill-could-blow-a-hole-in-the-nations-strongest-right-to-repair-law |title=A New Colorado Bill Could Blow a Hole in the Nation's Strongest Right to Repair Law |author=Elizabeth Chamberlain |publisher=iFixit |date=April 1, 2026}}</ref> Paul Roberts, chief of The Security Ledger and founder of Securepairs.org, stated: "A vibrant and healthy market for repair isn't a cybersecurity risk. In fact, it should be considered a cybersecurity imperative!"<ref name="ifixit-sb090" />

Repair advocates also point out that restricting independent repair makes critical infrastructure less secure, not more. If a piece of critical networking equipment fails, the operator needs to fix it immediately rather than wait for manufacturer approval and a service contract dispatch.<ref name="wired" />

==Committee hearing testimony==

The April 2, 2026 hearing before the Senate Business, Labor, & Technology Committee drew over a dozen repair advocates who testified against the bill.<ref name="wired" /> Organizations represented included [[iFixit]], CoPIRG, the Repair Association, and PIRG's national campaign. Repair advocate Louis Rossmann was also present.<ref name="wired" />

Katz, who described Colorado as having "the broadest repair rights in the country," warned that the bill "is a bad policy and would be a big step back for Coloradans' repair rights."<ref name="wired" /> Gordon-Byrne pointed to at least five drafting problems.<ref name="wired" />

===Carson's claim about a Polis signing statement===

During the hearing, bill sponsor Senator John Carson stated the following: <blockquote>"And I want to note that when Governor Polis signed House Bill 24-1121, when he signed it into law, he issued a directive in his signing statement that the law should be fixed before its implementation date of January 1, 2026. He noted that Colorado is the only state in the nation that requires devices used for critical infrastructure be included in their repair law. So we're running this bill to fix a critical mistake made in the original law and protect our devices from malicious attacks."<ref name="sb090-hearing">Colorado General Assembly, Senate Business, Labor, and Technology Committee hearing on SB26-090, April 2, 2026. Audio/video archived at the Colorado General Assembly Harmony system: https://sg001-harmony.sliq.net/00327/harmony/en/PowerBrowser/PowerBrowserV2/20260402/-1/27982</ref></blockquote>'''No such directive exists.'''

Governor Polis's official press release on signing HB24-1121, dated May 28, 2024, contains no mention of critical infrastructure, no directive to "fix" the law, and no statement that Colorado is an outlier.<ref name="polis-signing">{{Cite web |url=https://www.colorado.gov/governor/news/governor-polis-signs-right-repair-law-legislation-strengthen-colorados-economy-create-jobs |title=Governor Polis Signs Right to Repair Law, Legislation to Strengthen Colorado's Economy, Create Jobs & Support Creative Industries |publisher=Office of Governor Jared Polis |date=May 28, 2024 |access-date=2026-04-04}}</ref> Polis's actual statement read: <blockquote>"Protecting our right to repair our own broken equipment will save money, strengthen small businesses, and reduce technology waste."<ref name="polis-signing" /> </blockquote>

==Similar attempts in other states==
In 2025, the Texas legislature passed '''HB2963''', a right to repair bill signed on June 20, 2025 and effective September 1, 2026. The bill used the identical USA PATRIOT Act critical infrastructure exemption (42 U.S.C. 5195c(e)) as SB26-090, along with additional exemptions for medical devices and heavy equipment.<ref name="texas">{{Cite web |url=https://capitol.texas.gov/BillLookup/History.aspx?LegSess=89R&Bill=HB2963 |title=HB 2963 Bill History |publisher=Texas Legislature Online |date=2025}}</ref>

Several states that have passed repair laws, including Oregon, New York, California, and Minnesota, exempted business-to-business equipment from the start.<ref name="fighttorepair" />

As of 2026, right to repair bills have been introduced in every U.S. state and passed in eight.<ref name="wired" />

==See also==

*[[Right to Repair]]
*[[Parts pairing]]
*[[Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act]]
*[[Cisco Systems, Inc.]]
*[[Repair Association]]
*[[iFixit]]

==References==

{{reflist}}

[[Category:Right to repair]]
[[Category:Legislation]]
[[Category:Colorado]]

Canon ink DRM

2026-04-16T13:05:39Z

PixelRunner: fix the other category

{{#seo:
|description=Canon shipped toner without DRM chips during the 2022 chip shortage, telling customers to bypass authentication warnings.
}}
{{IncidentCargo
|Company=Canon
|StartDate=2021-12
|EndDate=
|Status=Active
|ProductLine=imageRUNNER
|Product=
|ArticleType=Product
|Type=DRM, Third-party
|Description=Canon uses authentication chips in toner cartridges to block third-party use; a chip shortage forced Canon to bypass its own DRM in 2022
}}
During the global semiconductor shortage, [[Canon]] shipped toner cartridges for its business multifunction printers without [[digital rights management|DRM]] authentication chips and published support pages instructing customers to dismiss the resulting counterfeit warnings.<ref name="vice">{{Cite web |last=Gault |first=Matthew |date=11 Jan 2022 |title=Canon Tells Customers to Break Its Printer Cartridge DRM Due to Chip Shortage |url=https://www.vice.com/en/article/canon-tells-customers-to-break-its-printer-cartridge-drm-due-to-chip-shortage/ |url-status=live |access-date=26 Mar 2026 |website=Vice |archive-url=http://web.archive.org/web/20260221011034/https://www.vice.com/en/article/canon-tells-customers-to-break-its-printer-cartridge-drm-due-to-chip-shortage/ |archive-date=21 Feb 2026}}</ref> Canon's own documentation stated there was "no negative impact on print quality" when using cartridges without the electronic components, an admission that consumer advocates and media outlets noted contradicted the industry's longstanding claims that DRM chips were necessary for quality assurance and device protection.<ref name="canon-de">{{Cite web |title=Interim-Toner: Auswirkungen der Halbleiterknappheit auf die Verbrauchsmaterialien des MFP von Canon |url=https://www.canon.de/support/business/interim-toner/ |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20231231021849/https://www.canon.de/support/business/interim-toner/ |archive-date=31 Dec 2023 |access-date=26 Mar 2026 |website=Canon Deutschland |language=de}}</ref><ref name="vice" /> The incident affected 19 model lines in Canon's imageRUNNER series of enterprise multifunction printers across Europe, Australia, New Zealand, and other markets.<ref name="petapixel">{{Cite web |last=Schneider |first=Jaron |date=9 Jan 2022 |title=Canon Printers Think Canon Ink is Fake Due to Chip Shortage |url=https://petapixel.com/2022/01/09/canon-printers-think-genuine-ink-is-counterfeit-due-to-chip-shortage/ |access-date=26 Mar 2026 |website=PetaPixel}}</ref>

== Background ==

Canon, like other major printer manufacturers including [[HP Inc.|HP]], [[Epson]], and [[Lexmark]], uses authentication chips embedded in its toner and ink cartridges to verify that a cartridge is a genuine Canon product.<ref name="enterprise-times">{{Cite web |date=10 Jan 2022 |title=Chip shortage hit Canon ink cartridges |url=https://www.enterprisetimes.co.uk/2022/01/10/chip-shortage-hit-canon-ink-cartridges/ |access-date=26 Mar 2026 |website=Enterprise Times}}</ref> Canon introduced these chips over a decade ago, stating they were designed to stop counterfeit and grey-market cartridges; however, Canon never provided evidence that third-party cartridges caused damage to printers.<ref name="enterprise-times" /> When a printer polls a cartridge chip and doesn't receive a valid authentication response, it displays warnings about counterfeit or unrecognized consumables and disables toner level tracking.<ref name="vice" />

This authentication system also prevents the use of less expensive third-party cartridges.<ref name="gizmodo">{{Cite web |last=Tracy |first=Phillip |date=10 Jan 2022 |title=Printer Cartridge Debacle Forces Canon to Tell Customers How to Break DRM |url=https://gizmodo.com/printer-cartridge-debacle-forces-canon-to-tell-customer-1848332901 |url-status=live |access-date=26 Mar 2026 |website=Gizmodo |archive-url=http://web.archive.org/web/20250708172734/https://gizmodo.com/printer-cartridge-debacle-forces-canon-to-tell-customer-1848332901 |archive-date=8 Jul 2025}}</ref> Canon has aggressively protected this revenue stream through litigation: in February 2018, Canon filed a complaint with the U.S. International Trade Commission against 49 manufacturers and distributors of third-party toner cartridges and photosensitive drum units, and by February 2023 had secured the removal of 30,263 third-party cartridge listings from Amazon in Europe.<ref name="canon-itc">{{Cite web |date=2 Mar 2018 |title=Canon files toner cartridge-related complaints with U.S. International Trade Commission and in U.S. district courts |url=https://global.canon/en/news/2018/20180302a.html |access-date=26 Mar 2026 |website=Canon Inc.}}</ref><ref name="petapixel-suing">{{Cite web |last=Schneider |first=Jaron |date=7 Feb 2023 |title=Canon Aggressively Removing Amazon Listings and Suing Printer Toner Makers |url=https://petapixel.com/2023/02/07/canon-aggressively-removing-amazon-listings-and-suing-printer-toner-makers/ |access-date=26 Mar 2026 |website=PetaPixel}}</ref>

== Chip shortage and DRM bypass ==

From mid-December 2021, Canon began shipping toner cartridges without authentication chips for its imageRUNNER and imageRUNNER ADVANCE series of enterprise multifunction printers.<ref name="eejournal">{{Cite web |date=4 Apr 2022 |title=Printer Manufacturers Hoist By Their Own Petard |url=https://www.eejournal.com/article/printer-manufacturers-hoist-by-their-own-petard/ |access-date=26 Mar 2026 |website=EE Journal}}</ref> Canon could manufacture the toner and plastic cartridge housings but could not source the specialized semiconductor chips used for authentication.<ref name="pcmag">{{Cite web |date=11 Jan 2022 |title=Canon Helps Customers Break Toner Cartridge Restrictions |url=https://www.pcmag.com/news/canon-helps-customers-break-toner-cartridge-restrictions |access-date=26 Mar 2026 |website=PCMag}}</ref> The affected consumables were toner products for 19 model lines in the imageRUNNER series; inkjet printer cartridges and standard laser printer toner were not affected.<ref name="canon-de" />

The affected models included the imageRUNNER 1435i/1435iF, imageRUNNER 2625i/2630i/2645i, imageRUNNER ADVANCE 4525i through 4551i (including II and III variants), imageRUNNER ADVANCE C-series models from the C250i through C5560i, and several imageRUNNER ADVANCE DX models including the DX 4725i through 4751i and the DX 6000i.<ref name="canon-de" />

Without the authentication chip, Canon's own genuine cartridges triggered the same warnings that normally appear when a third-party cartridge is inserted. Toner level displays jumped from 100% to 0% without warning, because the chip that tracks toner levels was absent.<ref name="gizmodo" /> Canon published support pages instructing customers to press "Close," "I Agree," or "OK" depending on their printer model to dismiss the warning and continue printing.<ref name="canon-de" />

The issue first gained public attention on January 7, 2022, when a Twitter user flagged Canon's German support page.<ref name="techdirt">{{Cite web |last=Bode |first=Karl |date=11 Jan 2022 |title=Chip Shortage Forces Canon To Issue Workarounds For Its Own Obnoxious DRM |url=https://www.techdirt.com/2022/01/11/chip-shortage-forces-canon-to-issue-workarounds-own-obnoxious-drm/ |access-date=26 Mar 2026 |website=Techdirt}}</ref> Within days, Canon had published support pages across its regional websites in Germany, Europe-wide, Australia, and New Zealand.<ref name="canon-de" /><ref name="itpro">{{Cite web |last=Marzouk |first=Zach |date=10 Jan 2022 |title=Canon to sell chip-free printer cartridges as semiconductor shortage bites |url=https://www.itpro.com/hardware/components/361931/canon-hit-global-chip-shortage |access-date=26 Mar 2026 |website=IT Pro}}</ref> Canon's Australia and New Zealand operations estimated chipless toner cartridges would be supplied in those countries from February 2022 onward.<ref name="itpro" />

=== Canon's response ===

Canon's official statement attributed the issue to "the ongoing global shortage of semiconductor components" and said the company had chosen to "supply consumable products without the semiconductor component until normal supply resumes."<ref name="vice" /> The statement noted the chips' intended function was to detect remaining toner levels and to confirm that the toner was a genuine Canon product.<ref name="techdirt" />

Canon explicitly stated that there was "no negative impact on print quality when using consumables without electronic components," but warned that "certain additional functions, such as the detection of the toner level, may be impaired."<ref name="canon-de" /> The company framed the chipless supply as temporary and indicated it would resume chip-based authentication once semiconductor supply normalized.<ref name="gizmodo" />

== Consumer and media reaction ==

The media response was widely critical. Gizmodo described the incident as an "embarrassing self-own" in which Canon was instructing customers to bypass "the same erroneous error messages consumers have long condemned as being anti-competitive."<ref name="gizmodo" /> Vice noted that "consumers and digital rights activists have been pointing out for ages" that printer DRM served no quality purpose, and that Canon had now "essentially admits that its own DRM is absolutely not necessary."<ref name="vice" />

Techdirt characterized Canon's DRM bypass instructions as ironic, given that Canon had been sued just months earlier for disabling all functions in its multifunction printers when ink ran out.<ref name="techdirt" /> Vice observed that Canon could not credibly resume claiming the chips were needed for print quality after publicly documenting that they weren't.<ref name="vice" />

Canon has stated the chipless supply was temporary and resumed chip-based authentication once semiconductor supply normalized. As of 2026, Canon continues to release firmware updates that can reject third-party cartridges.<ref name="enterprise-times" />

== Related litigation ==

In October 2021, David Leacraft filed a class action lawsuit against Canon USA (''Leacraft v. Canon U.S.A., Inc.'', No. 2:21-cv-05688, E.D.N.Y.) alleging that Canon's PIXMA "all-in-one" printers disabled scanning and faxing when ink cartridges were low or empty, despite those functions not requiring ink.<ref name="classaction">{{Cite web |date=18 Oct 2021 |title=Canon Concealed that 'All-in-One' Printers Can't Scan, Fax When Ink Is Low or Empty, Class Action Claims |url=https://www.classaction.org/blog/canon-concealed-that-all-in-one-printers-cant-scan-fax-when-ink-is-low-or-empty-class-action-claims |access-date=26 Mar 2026 |website=ClassAction.org}}</ref> The complaint named over 20 PIXMA and MAXIFY printer models and alleged violations of New York General Business Law Sections 349-350, breach of express warranty, and unjust enrichment.<ref name="classaction" /> The case was resolved through a private settlement and dismissed with prejudice in early 2023.<ref name="action-intell">{{Cite web |date=16 Nov 2022 |title=Canon to Settle Lawsuit over Printers That Won't Scan with Empty Inkjet Cartridges |url=https://www.action-intell.com/2022/11/16/canon-to-settle-lawsuit-over-printers-that-wont-scan-with-empty-inkjet-cartridges/ |access-date=26 Mar 2026 |website=Actionable Intelligence}}</ref>

A second class action with the same allegations, ''Bozyk v. Canon U.S.A., Inc.'' (No. 2:23-cv-06554, E.D.N.Y.), was filed in August 2023 and voluntarily dismissed later that year.<ref name="topclassactions">{{Cite web |date=8 Sep 2023 |title=Canon class action alleges company falsely advertises all-in-one printers |url=https://topclassactions.com/lawsuit-settlements/consumer-products/electronics/canon-class-action-alleges-company-falsely-advertises-all-in-one-printers/ |access-date=26 Mar 2026 |website=Top Class Actions}}</ref>

== References ==
{{reflist}}

[[Category:Canon]]
[[Category:Digital rights management]]
[[Category:Right to repair]]

Canon ink DRM

2026-04-16T13:05:08Z

PixelRunner: fix category

2026-04-16T12:55:22Z

PixelRunner: fix categories

{{#seo:
|description=Bose firmware-locked QuietComfort Earbuds (2020) and Sport Earbuds to their charging cases, bricking functional earbuds if the case was lost or broken.
}}
{{IncidentCargo
|Company=Bose
|StartDate=2020-09-29
|EndDate=
|Status=Active
|ProductLine=
|Product=Bose QuietComfort Earbuds
|ArticleType=Product
|Type=Repairability,Planned Obsolescence
|Description=Bose firmware-locked QC Earbuds (2020) to their charging case; losing the case bricks functional earbuds with no replacement sold
}}
Bose shipped the original '''[[Bose|QuietComfort Earbuds]]''' (2020) and Sport Earbuds with a restriction that binds each pair of earbuds to its factory-issued charging case.<ref name="reddit-r2r">{{Cite web |author=Disastrous_Invite_70 |date=2024-09-14 |title=No way this is fair from Bose |url=https://www.reddit.com/r/righttorepair/comments/1fgbf33/no_way_this_is_fair_from_bose/ |url-status=live |archive-url=https://ghostarchive.org/archive/UwcFU |archive-date=7 Apr 2026 |access-date=2026-03-26 |work=r/righttorepair |publisher=Reddit}}</ref><ref name="reddit-bose-thread">{{Cite web |date=2021-02-13 |title=Bose QuietComfort Earbuds case replacement? |url=https://www.reddit.com/r/bose/comments/lj0q2f/bose_quietcomfort_earbuds_case_replacement/ |url-status=live |archive-url=https://ghostarchive.org/archive/SPi0H |archive-date=7 Apr 2026 |access-date=2026-03-26 |work=r/bose |publisher=Reddit}}</ref> If the case is lost or broken, the earbuds can't enter Bluetooth pairing mode and are rendered useless. Bose declined to sell replacement cases for these models, instead offering trade-in programs at $126 to $180 that required consumers to surrender their functional earbuds and pay for a new set.<ref name="reddit-bose-thread" /> The practice turned a $279 product into e-waste over a lost battery case. Bose reversed the policy for models released from 2022 onward, but owners of the original QC Earbuds and Sport Earbuds remain affected.

==Background==

Bose entered the true wireless stereo (TWS) earbud market with the SoundSport Free in 2017. That model's charging case was interchangeable; consumers who purchased replacement cases on eBay reported they worked without issue.<ref name="reddit-bose-thread" /> Bose released the QuietComfort Earbuds ($279) and Sport Earbuds ($179) on September 29, 2020.<ref name="bose-pressroom">{{Cite web |date=2020-09-10 |title=Introducing QuietComfort Earbuds & Sport Earbuds |url=https://www.bose.com/pressroom/bose-introduces-quietcomfort-earbuds-and-sport-earbuds |url-status=live |archive-url=https://ghostarchive.org/archive/E4tdc |archive-date=7 Apr 2026 |access-date=2026-03-26 |publisher=Bose}}</ref> Both models introduced a new architecture in which the charging case housed the Bluetooth pairing button required for device setup.

Separately, Bose's Sleepbuds product line (sleep-only earbuds with no music playback) had its own history of hardware failures. The original Sleepbuds were discontinued in 2019 after widespread battery defects, with Bose offering full refunds.<ref name="engadget-sleepbuds">{{Cite web |last=Fingas |first=Jon |date=2019-10-03 |title=Bose discontinues its Sleepbuds due to battery issues |url=https://www.engadget.com/2019-10-03-bose-sleepbuds-refund-discontinued-battery-issues.html |url-status=live |archive-url=https://ghostarchive.org/archive/JPnzq?wr=false |archive-date=7 Apr 2026 |access-date=2026-03-26 |publisher=Engadget}}</ref> The Sleepbuds II (2020) improved the battery but were discontinued by 2023 due to low demand.<ref name="ozlo-sleepbuds">{{Cite web |title=Why Were Bose Sleepbuds Discontinued? |url=https://ozlosleep.com/blogs/news/why-were-bose-sleepbuds-discontinued |url-status=live |archive-url=https://ghostarchive.org/archive/0dh1y?wr=false |archive-date=7 Apr 2026 |access-date=2026-03-26 |publisher=Ozlo Sleep}}</ref> eBay listings for Sleepbuds II charging cases carried similar warnings about pairing limitations to those documented for the QC Earbuds.<ref name="reddit-bose-thread" />

==Charging case serialization==

The QC Earbuds (2020) and Sport Earbuds are paired to their factory-issued charging case. The case contains the button required to initiate Bluetooth pairing; without the original case, the earbuds can't enter pairing mode and won't connect to any device.<ref name="reddit-r2r" /> One consumer purchased a replacement case and reported that "everything seems fine until the moment I want to reconnect them to my phone. Nope nothing happened." Bose told them the case "was serialized to my earbuds and are rendered useless."<ref name="reddit-r2r" />

Third-party sellers on eBay documented this limitation explicitly. Listings for aftermarket QC Earbuds charging cases carried warnings: "It will not go into pairing mode, will not sync with your earbuds. This is a charging case only."<ref name="reddit-bose-thread" /> The workaround only helps consumers whose earbuds are still paired to an existing phone. Anyone who factory-resets the earbuds or switches phones loses connectivity permanently.

Multiple consumers reported that Bose customer support confirmed the pairing restriction. On the r/bose subreddit, users documented being told the earbuds are "electronically matched to the case they came with" and that no standalone case replacement was available.<ref name="reddit-bose-thread" />

This mechanism was not an inherent limitation of TWS technology. Apple, Samsung, and Sony all sell standalone replacement charging cases for their earbuds. Apple's AirPods Pro 2 replacement case costs $99;<ref name="android-authority-airpods">{{Cite web |title=Can you replace your AirPods case? Here's everything you need to know |url=https://www.androidauthority.com/can-you-replace-airpods-case-3311908/ |url-status=live |archive-url=https://ghostarchive.org/archive/DW0o5 |archive-date=7 Apr 2026 |access-date=2026-03-26 |publisher=Android Authority}}</ref> Samsung's Galaxy Buds3 Pro case costs $48.99;<ref name="samsung-case">{{Cite web |title=Galaxy Buds3 Pro Charging Case |url=https://www.samsung.com/us/mobile-accessories/buds/galaxy-buds3-pro-charging-case-sku-ep-qr630cjegus/ |url-status=live |archive-url=https://ghostarchive.org/archive/gO9FR |archive-date=7 Apr 2026 |access-date=2026-03-26 |publisher=Samsung}}</ref> both allow re-pairing through a reset procedure. Bose's serialization of the original QC Earbuds was an industry anomaly.

===Bose's response===

Rather than selling replacement cases, Bose offered trade-in programs for consumers with damaged or lost cases. The pricing varied and appeared inconsistent across support channels:

*One consumer was quoted $126 for a trade-in that required surrendering the original earbuds.<ref name="reddit-bose-thread" />
*Another was quoted $150 and told it was a "special favor."<ref name="reddit-bose-thread" />
*A European customer was quoted 180 EUR.<ref name="reddit-bose-thread" />

Some customers reported being told to purchase an entirely new unit at full price, with no trade-in offer mentioned unless the customer specifically asked.<ref name="reddit-bose-thread" />

Bose reversed the practice with the QuietComfort Earbuds II, released in September 2022. Replacement cases for the QC Earbuds II are sold on Bose's website for $99.<ref name="bose-qcii-case">{{Cite web |title=QuietComfort Earbuds II Charging Case |url=https://www.bose.com/p/accessories/charging-case--quietcomfort-earbuds-ii/CMWB-QCEARBII-CASEPWR.html |url-status=live |archive-url=https://ghostarchive.org/archive/rBG5q |archive-date=7 Apr 2026 |access-date=2026-03-26 |publisher=Bose}}</ref> The QC Ultra Earbuds (2023) and QC Earbuds (2024) also have replacement cases available at $99 to $100.<ref name="bose-qc2024-case">{{Cite web |title=QuietComfort Earbuds (2024) Charging Case |url=https://www.bose.com/p/accessories/bose-quietcomfort-earbuds-charging-case/CMWB-QCEARB24-CASEPWR.html |url-status=live |archive-url=https://ghostarchive.org/archive/PODnt |archive-date=7 Apr 2026 |access-date=2026-03-26 |publisher=Bose}}</ref><ref name="bose-ultra-case">{{Cite web |title=QuietComfort Ultra Earbuds Charging Case |url=https://www.bose.com/p/accessories/bose-quietcomfort-ultra-earbuds-charging-case/CMWB-QCUE-CASEPWR.html |url-status=live |archive-url=https://ghostarchive.org/archive/2WVhQ |archive-date=7 Apr 2026 |access-date=2026-03-26 |publisher=Bose}}</ref>

No replacement case has been made available for the original QC Earbuds (2020) or Sport Earbuds. Bose's earbuds accessories page lists replacement cases only for the QC Earbuds II, QC Ultra, and Ultra Open models.<ref name="bose-accessories">{{Cite web |title=Earbud Accessories & Earbud Parts |url=https://www.bose.com/c/earbuds/accessories |url-status=live |archive-url=https://ghostarchive.org/archive/4KjGV |archive-date=7 Apr 2026 |access-date=2026-03-26 |publisher=Bose}}</ref>

==Consumer response==

Consumers characterized the serialization as [[planned obsolescence]]. On the r/bose subreddit, one user wrote: "They purposely program reliance on the factory original case so that you have to buy a new pair. They do not offer a replacement, instead they pretend they are doing you a huge favour by discounting you a whole new kit."<ref name="reddit-bose-thread" /> Another compared it unfavorably to earlier Bose products: "Planned obsolescence?? Why not just have the earbuds pair like on old models."<ref name="reddit-bose-thread" />

In September 2024, a user on r/righttorepair reported that their QC Earbuds case was destroyed by a military vehicle during deployment. The earbuds were undamaged. They purchased a replacement case, but the earbuds refused to reconnect. Bose told them the case "was serialized to my earbuds and are rendered useless."<ref name="reddit-r2r" />

A secondary market emerged for "charging-only" replacement cases on eBay and AliExpress. These third-party cases can charge the earbuds but can't initiate Bluetooth pairing due to the firmware lock. Sellers warn buyers that the cases are "charging only" and the earbuds won't sync with a new phone if unpaired.<ref name="reddit-bose-thread" />

==Regulatory context==

The European Union's [[Right to Repair|Right to Repair Directive]] (Directive (EU) 2024/1799), published July 10, 2024 and requiring member state transposition by July 31, 2026, prohibits manufacturers from using "contractual clauses, hardware or software techniques that impede the repair of goods."<ref name="eu-directive">{{Cite web |date=2024-07-10 |title=Directive (EU) 2024/1799 |url=https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/dir/2024/1799/oj/eng |url-status=live |archive-url=https://ghostarchive.org/archive/71iW7 |archive-date=7 Apr 2026 |access-date=2026-03-26 |publisher=EUR-Lex}}</ref> The directive also bars manufacturers from impeding the use of second-hand or compatible spare parts by independent repairers.

In the United States, Oregon became the first state to ban parts pairing when Governor Tina Kotek signed SB 1596 on March 28, 2024.<ref name="oregon-r2r">{{Cite web |date=2024-03-28 |title=Oregon's New Right to Repair Law Bans 'Parts Pairing' Restrictions |url=https://www.macrumors.com/2024/03/28/oregon-right-to-repair-law/ |url-status=live |archive-url=https://ghostarchive.org/archive/7Vmh9?wr=false |archive-date=7 Apr 2026 |access-date=2026-03-26 |publisher=MacRumors}}</ref> Colorado followed with HB 24-1121, signed May 28, 2024, which restricts manufacturers from using parts pairing or software authentication to frustrate independent repairs, effective January 1, 2026.<ref name="colorado-r2r">{{Cite web |date=2024-06-20 |title=Colorado Expands Right-to-Repair Law |url=https://www.proskauer.com/blog/colorado-expands-right-to-repair-law |url-status=live |archive-url=https://ghostarchive.org/archive/VYRQW |archive-date=7 Apr 2026 |access-date=2026-03-26 |publisher=Proskauer Rose LLP}}</ref> Washington's HB 1483, signed May 19, 2025, similarly prohibits original manufacturers from using parts pairing "to inhibit the installation or functionality of replacement parts by independent repair providers or owners."<ref name="washington-r2r">{{Cite web |date=2025-05-20 |title=Governor Signs Landmark Right to Repair Bills into Law |url=https://housedemocrats.wa.gov/gregerson/2025/05/20/governor-signs-landmark-right-to-repair-bills-into-law-expanding-consumer-protections-access-to-repairs/ |url-status=live |archive-url=https://ghostarchive.org/archive/DSaXc |archive-date=7 Apr 2026 |access-date=2026-03-26 |publisher=Washington State House Democrats}}</ref>

The federal [[Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act]] (15 U.S.C. ch. 50, Sections 2301-2312) prohibits manufacturers from conditioning warranty coverage on the use of OEM parts, though it primarily addresses warranty-period restrictions rather than post-warranty firmware locks like Bose's case serialization.

==See also==

*[[Planned obsolescence]]
*[[Right to Repair]]

==References==
{{reflist}}

[[Category:Bose]]
[[Category:Planned obsolescence]]
[[Category:Right to repair]]