Brother printers causing issues with third party inks: Difference between revisions
Tone change to fit within the guidelines of staying neutral and non-accusatory. Some minor grammar fixes and sentence flow improvements. |
Further clarifications and improved flow. Added a crucial detail of potential legal implications that further strengthen the argument being made. |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{ToneWarning}} | {{ToneWarning}} | ||
In the past, [[Brother Industries Ltd.|Brother]] has | In the past, [[Brother Industries Ltd.|Brother]] has allowed the use of third-party toner in their printers which showcases a consumer-friendly approach to the printing industry. In recent years, however, firmware updates have been implemented to discourage toner usage from manufacturers other than Brother. When a user attempts to install a third-party toner, an act that was previously accepted, the Brother printer displays an error message warning that the toner may damage the printer and only OEM (original equipment manufacturer) toner is safe to use. Continuing their practice of installing third-party toners, some users report a notable decrease in print quality. This is due to the firmware updates having disabled color registration among other core printing features from third-party toner cartridges, effectively locking in users to purchase toners manufactured only by Brother.<ref name=":0">{{Cite web |last=Jacobs |first=Skye |date=2025-03-05 |title=Brother printers are quietly sabotaging third-party toner with firmware updates |url=https://www.techspot.com/news/107022-brother-printers-quietly-sabotaging-third-party-toner-firmware.html}}</ref> | ||
==Exploitative Practices== | ==Exploitative Practices== | ||
| Line 11: | Line 11: | ||
1. Consumers purchase a Brother laser printer that previously accepted third-party toner. | 1. Consumers purchase a Brother laser printer that previously accepted third-party toner. | ||
2. A firmware update (e.g., W1.56) is pushed | 2. A firmware update (e.g., W1.56) is pushed and does not notify users of any major changes in core functionality. | ||
3. After updating, users report | 3. After updating, users report: | ||
*Color registration fails | *Color registration fails by default, causing misaligned prints.<ref name="cups">[https://wiki.archlinux.org/title/CUPS/Printer-specific_problems#Updating_the_firmware ArchWiki - Printer-specific problems with Brother.]</ref> | ||
4. Brother support acknowledges that installing OEM toner will immediately resolve the issue.<ref name="hackernews" /> | |||
*Older firmware versions are removed from Brother’s servers, preventing downgrades.<ref name="github-ohbrother">[https://github.com/CauldronDevelopmentLLC/oh-brother/issues/30 Discussion on firmware rollback for Brother printers.]</ref> | *Older firmware versions are removed from Brother’s servers, preventing firmware downgrades that would fix the issue while also allowing consumers to use their preferred toner.<ref name="github-ohbrother">[https://github.com/CauldronDevelopmentLLC/oh-brother/issues/30 Discussion on firmware rollback for Brother printers.]</ref> | ||
==Impact on Consumer Protection== | ==Impact on Consumer Protection== | ||
*Consumers may no longer use the ink provider of their choice without compromising the functionality of their printer. | *Consumers may no longer use the ink provider of their choice without compromising the functionality of their printer. | ||
*Consumers previously able to save money by | *Consumers previously able to save money by purchasing third-party toner are now required to purchase OEM toner at a higher cost to maintain printer functionality. | ||
*Brother’s consumer-friendly reputation for allowing third-party toner is now tarnished. | *Brother’s consumer-friendly reputation for allowing third-party toner is now tarnished. | ||
*No prior warning of change in the printer's core functionality had been given before these firmware updates were installed. | *No prior warning of change in the printer's core functionality had been given before these firmware updates were installed. | ||
| Line 41: | Line 41: | ||
==User evidence & reports== | ==User evidence & reports== | ||
===Hacker News Discussion (2022)=== | ===Hacker News Discussion (2022)=== | ||
*Users noticed that Brother's printers do accept third-party toner instead of outright rejection | *Users have noticed that Brother's printers do accept third-party toner instead of outright rejection. This leads some to suspect the consequential loss of print quality may be a deliberate act. One user stated: | ||
<blockquote>''Brother seems to be apparently accepting the ink, but then purposefully making the print quality poorer.''<ref name="hackernews" /></blockquote> | <blockquote>''Brother seems to be apparently accepting the ink, but then purposefully making the print quality poorer.''<ref name="hackernews" /></blockquote> | ||
| Line 51: | Line 50: | ||
===GitHub developer investigation=== | ===GitHub developer investigation=== | ||
*A project analyzing Brother firmware updates discovered that older firmware versions were removed from Brother’s servers, making it impossible for users to roll back to a working version.<ref name="github-fwupd" /> | *A project analyzing Brother firmware updates discovered that older firmware versions were removed from Brother’s servers, making it impossible for users to roll back to a working version.<ref name="github-fwupd" /> | ||
*Another GitHub discussion showed that Brother firmware updates lock out more non-Brother toner cartridges with each update.<ref name="github-ohbrother" /> | *Another GitHub discussion showed that Brother firmware updates continue to lock out more non-Brother toner cartridges with each update.<ref name="github-ohbrother" /> | ||
*This is similar to [[HP Dynamic Security]], which blocks non-OEM cartridges. | *This is similar to [[HP Dynamic Security]], which blocks non-OEM cartridges. | ||
| Line 72: | Line 71: | ||
==Potential legal implications== | ==Potential legal implications== | ||
If the removal of core printing functionality after purchase is deliberate, this action may qualify as a deceptive trade practice in multiple jurisdictions. | If the removal of core printing functionality after purchase is deliberate, this action may qualify as a deceptive trade practice in multiple jurisdictions. | ||
Removal of previous firmware, workable versions from the company's website may indicate the company's willful lock-out of consumer choice, effectively forcing purchases that do not align with the consumer's preferences. | |||
==Mitigations available to users== | ==Mitigations available to users== | ||