Skip to content
WorldBrand.AI

Epson controversies

Controversies tied to this brand in public sources. A listing is not a finding of fault.

Back to profile5 entries

  1. 2015

    Printer cartridge-level reporting controversy

    Reports claimed that certain Epson printers could report cartridges as empty while ink remained. Epson responded that reserve ink could be required for cleaning and protecting printheads, and that users could retain and reuse cartridges in some maintenance situations.

    Source

  2. 2015

    Reports of ink remaining after empty indication

    Reports again questioned Epson printers that identified cartridges as empty while some ink remained. Epson said the retained ink was associated with maintenance and protection of print heads and explained that users could sometimes replace a fuller cartridge for cleaning before returning to the original cartridge.

    Source

  3. 2003

    Dutch ink-cartridge boycott dispute

    A Dutch consumer association urged its members to boycott Epson inkjet printers, alleging that customers were charged for ink that could not be used. The organization later withdrew the nationwide boycott recommendation and acknowledged Epson’s explanation that residual ink was needed for printhead protection and maintenance. A Netherlands-based consumer organization alleged that Epson customers paid for ink that could not be used and called for a boycott. It later retracted the nationwide boycott call after acknowledging Epson's explanation that retained ink supported print-head operation and maintenance.

    Source

  4. 2003

    United States ink-consumption class action

    Epson America settled a class action in Los Angeles concerning ink remaining in cartridges and printer operation. The company did not admit wrongdoing and agreed to provide qualifying purchasers with a $45 refund, subject to conditions including a minimum amount usable through Epson’s online store.

    Source

  5. United States inkjet class-action settlement

    Epson America agreed to a refund settlement in a class action concerning ink cartridges and ink-level practices. The company did not admit wrongdoing as part of the settlement.

    Source