Epson planned obsolescence prosecution

The Epson planned obsolescence prosecution is a criminal case in France in which printer manufacturer Epson stands accused of blocking printing while ink cartridges still hold usable ink & of prematurely shutting printers down over their waste-ink pads. Following a September 2017 complaint by the consumer & environmental association Halte à l'Obsolescence Programmée (HOP), the Nanterre public prosecutor summoned Epson before the criminal court on charges of planned obsolescence & misleading commercial practices. A procedural hearing opened on July 2, 2026, & the substantive hearing is scheduled for February 25, 2027; no finding has been made against Epson, which categorically rejects the allegations.

Background

Halte à l'Obsolescence Programmée (HOP, Stop Planned Obsolescence) is a French consumer & environmental association & a steering-group member of the Right to Repair Europe coalition. France created a criminal offence of planned obsolescence in 2015; for years no case reached court under it, & in 2016 the consumer group UFC-Que Choisir called it unsurprising that none had been brought, given the difficulty of proving an intent to shorten a product's life. HOP has documented a broad pattern of printer complaints, including cartridges suddenly declared incompatible or expired, scanners or whole printers that stop working without a valid reason, uneconomical repair costs & cartridges priced so high that replacing the device seems cheaper.

Complaint and investigation

In September 2017, HOP filed a criminal complaint for planned obsolescence & deception against printer makers, and in particular Epson. A few months later the Nanterre public prosecutor opened a preliminary investigation into Epson & handed the technical inquiry to the DGCCRF, France's competition, consumer affairs & fraud-control authority. The DGCCRF investigated for more than eight years before the prosecutor decided to bring the case to court.

Alleged mechanisms

The case centers on two mechanisms. The first is cartridges that report themselves unusable while ink remains: HOP alleges that some Epson printers could prevent users from printing or scanning while ink stayed inside the cartridge. Me Émile Meunier, a lawyer for HOP, told Next that expert examinations found the blocked cartridges contiennent encore un fort pourcentage d'encre (still contain a high percentage of ink). The second is the waste-ink pad, the absorbent component that catches ink from cleaning cycles, which Next summarized as la fausse fin de vie du tampon absorbeur (the false end of life of the absorber pad); prosecutors allege the maintenance system tied to the pad could prematurely halt the printer.

Halte à l'Obsolescence Programmée's announcement of the case describes the two techniques at issue, blocking printing while ink remains in the cartridge and prematurely ending the life of the ink pads, and states that the Nanterre prosecutor concluded that Epson had eu recours à des techniques visant à réduire délibérément la durée de vie [d'un] produit pour en augmenter le taux de remplacement.

Legal basis

The planned obsolescence offence is codified at Article L441-2 of the French Consumer Code, which prohibits the practice & defines it as le recours à des techniques, y compris logicielles, par lesquelles le responsable de la mise sur le marché d'un produit vise à en réduire délibérément la durée de vie (the use of techniques, including software-based ones, by which the party responsible for placing a product on the market aims to deliberately reduce its lifespan). Article L454-6 sets the penalty at two years' imprisonment & a fine of 300,000 euros, which may be raised, in proportion to the advantage gained from the offence, to 5% of the offender's average annual turnover. The offence was introduced into French law by the Energy Transition Act of 2015.

Court proceedings

The Nanterre Criminal Court opened proceedings against Epson on July 2, 2026. That first appearance was an audience de fixation, a procedural hearing used to set the case timetable rather than to examine the allegations or decide Epson's liability. HOP's team attended, led by its executive director Laëtitia Vasseur & its lawyer William Milkoff, alongside the DGCCRF, which had run the eight-year investigation, & lawyers & representatives for Epson.

In summoning the company, the Nanterre public prosecutor's office concluded that Epson had, in the prosecutor's words:

used techniques deliberately designed to reduce the lifespan of a product in order to increase its replacement rate.

The allegations have not been tested in court, & no finding has been made against Epson. The substantive hearing, at which the parties will present their arguments, is scheduled for February 25, 2027.

HOP's follow-up statement reports that, after the procedural hearing (audience de fixation), the substantive hearing against Epson was scheduled for February 25, 2027.

Epson's response

In a statement to The Recycler, Epson rejected the accusations:

Epson is aware of the communication from HOP and is reviewing the matter. We categorically reject all allegations of 'planned obsolescence' or 'misleading practices'. To do so would be completely contrary to our philosophy and principles of corporate behaviour. As legal proceedings are ongoing, we cannot comment further at this stage.

In a statement to The Recycler, Epson said, We categorically reject all allegations of 'planned obsolescence' or 'misleading practices'.

The company has long defended the residual ink as a safeguard. In a 2018 interview with Le Monde reported by Next, Epson's French marketing director, Thierry Bagnaschino, said the print head must stay bathed in liquid so that no air enters it; if it dries out, the head degrades & becomes unrecoverable, & replacing it can cost more than a new entry-level printer. He described the waste-ink pad in similar terms, as a measure to keep ink from spilling out of the printer.

United States civil litigation

A separate civil matter in the United States addressed a similar complaint two decades earlier. In re Epson Ink Cartridge Cases, coordinated in the Los Angeles County Superior Court in California, alleged that Epson inkjet printers & cartridges indicated that cartridges were empty & suspended printer function even though substantial ink remained. Epson America denied the claims & any wrongdoing but settled to avoid the cost of litigation; the court granted preliminary approval on February 7, 2006, & considered final approval at a hearing on August 15, 2006. Registered class members received a $45 credit in the Epson E-Store for each qualifying printer. That settlement resolved civil claims under California consumer-protection law, separate from the criminal prosecution now before the Nanterre court.

The EpsonSettlement.com summary of the 2006 class action states that plaintiffs alleged Epson printers indicated cartridges were empty and suspended printer function even though substantial ink remains, and that Epson America denied any wrongdoing.

Significance

HOP describes the case as the first legal action in France, & in the world, based on the planned obsolescence offence. The Recycler frames it more cautiously, as potentially one of the first major tests of the 2015 offence, with implications across the imaging industry.

HOP ties the printer practices to environmental cost: it says roughly 1.1 billion cartridges are sold worldwide each year across all brands, that ink is sometimes priced at up to 7,500 euros per liter, & that a cartridge can take over 1,000 years to decompose. The same review of the printer sector led HOP to file a further complaint, against HP, in late 2024; that investigation remains open.

Laëtitia Vasseur, HOP's co-founder & executive director, said:

This is a historic step toward the first potential conviction of a company for planned obsolescence. Consumers have been heard. Printers have become the symbol of planned obsolescence, leading to an immense waste of money and resources.

The Recycler wrote that the case is likely to be closely watched by manufacturers, remanufacturers, consumer groups & policymakers across Europe, & that its outcome could influence future rules on product lifespan & consumables.

See also

• Planned obsolescence
• Right to repair