Epson Class Action Lawsuit: 2006 Settlement and 2019 Dismissal

Only one Epson class action lawsuit has produced a payout to consumers: the 2006 settlement over printers that reported ink cartridges as empty while ink remained. Every case since has followed a different path. A 2019 federal class action over firmware updates that blocked third-party ink was dismissed and pushed into arbitration, and the current firmware fight is being litigated as thousands of individual arbitration demands, with Epson suing its own customers in response. There is no open Epson class action a consumer can file a claim in right now.

The 2006 Ink Cartridge Settlement

The one Epson class action that actually paid consumers was In re Epson Ink Cartridge Cases, Judicial Council Coordination Proceeding No. 4347, coordinated in Los Angeles County Superior Court. Plaintiffs alleged Epson inkjet printers were programmed to report cartridges as “empty” and stop printing while a substantial amount of ink remained inside. The complaint bundled together breach of contract, breach of implied warranties, unjust enrichment, fraudulent concealment, false advertising, and violations of California’s Unfair Competition Law and Consumers Legal Remedies Act.¹

Epson denied wrongdoing but settled. The class covered anyone in the United States who purchased, leased, or received a qualifying Epson inkjet printer and used an Epson ink cartridge between April 8, 1999, and May 8, 2006. Dozens of Stylus, Stylus Photo, CX multifunction, PictureMate, and Stylus Pro models qualified.¹ More than ten million people were eligible.²

Benefits depended on how you had registered. Owners already registered with Epson by November 13, 2006, automatically received a $45 credit at Epson’s online store. Everyone else could pick between $25 in cash plus a $20 store credit, or a 25 percent discount on Epson store purchases capped at $100 in savings. Epson also agreed to change what it said on packaging, in manuals, and on its website about how its printers and cartridges interact.¹ The court gave preliminary approval on February 7, 2006, and held the final fairness hearing on August 15, 2006.² Class counsel sought up to $35 million in fees and costs.

The claims window has been closed for years. If you missed it, there is no way to file now.

The 2019 Firmware Class Action Was Dismissed

The next attempt at an Epson class action targeted something different: firmware updates that disabled printers when owners tried to use non-Epson ink. In October 2019, William Mondigo and Richard Famiglietti filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California. Their complaint called the practice “anti-competitive, unfair, fraudulent and oppressive” and said Epson marketed the updates as performance improvements without telling users they would lock out third-party cartridges.³⁴

The plaintiffs invoked the federal Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act, California’s Unfair Competition Law and False Advertising Law, and the California Computer Penal Code.³ Chief Judge Larry Alan Burns dismissed the case without prejudice on February 14, 2020.⁵ The claims were sent to arbitration rather than back to district court, and settlement talks followed.⁶

That dismissal matters for anyone searching for a class action today. The firmware dispute did not survive as a class action. It became an arbitration fight.

Why There Is No Open Firmware Class Action

Epson printers ship with an arbitration clause, and that clause has shaped everything since. In 2022, the law firm Labaton Sucharow told Epson it planned to file individual arbitrations for more than 13,000 printer owners. Epson demanded proof of purchase and serial numbers for each claimant. After Labaton documented roughly 2,000 people, it filed about 4,000 individual arbitration demands with JAMS in March 2023.⁷

Epson’s response was to sue the claimants. On March 13, 2023, it filed two cases in Orange County Superior Court naming thousands of individual customers as defendants:

Epson America, Inc. v. Adams (No. 30-2023-01313431) targeted claimants for whom Epson said it had no record of any purchase, asking the court to declare that no arbitration agreement existed with them.
Epson America, Inc. v. Arnoff (No. 30-2023-01315890) targeted confirmed Epson customers, arguing they had skipped mandatory pre-arbitration steps and filed in the wrong forum. Epson said its arbitration agreement required FedArb, not JAMS.

Epson called the arbitration campaign a “frivolous mass arbitration scheme” designed to “extort a large settlement,” pointing out that JAMS filing fees alone could top $20 million. The claimant-defendants moved to certify a class within the Arnoff case, but the court continued the hearing in August 2023 after finding the motion had not been served properly.⁸ Both cases were still pending in mid-2025.⁷

A separate federal case, Aaron et al. v. Epson America, Inc. (No. 8:24-cv-01712), was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on August 6, 2024, under the U.S. Arbitration Act. It involved hundreds of individual petitioners, with Umberg Zipser LLP representing the claimants and Quinn Emanuel defending Epson.⁹ It was assigned to Judge Fred W. Slaughter and terminated on July 29, 2025.¹⁰ As of July 2025 no settlement had been reached in the broader firmware dispute, and the litigation was set to resume.¹¹

None of this is a class action a consumer can opt into. It is a collection of individual arbitrations, Epson’s counter-suits against those individuals, and a now-terminated federal case brought to compel or resist arbitration.

Can You Join an Epson Class Action Right Now?

No open Epson class action is currently accepting claims. The 2006 ink-cartridge settlement is long closed. The 2019 Mondigo class action was dismissed and forced into arbitration. The current firmware fight is being run as individual arbitrations, and Epson is contesting whether many of those claimants have valid arbitration agreements at all.

One further proceeding is worth knowing about because a searcher may otherwise assume it is a consumer claim: Epson faces criminal charges in France for planned obsolescence and misleading commercial practices, following an eight-year investigation by the French consumer protection authority (DGCCRF) after a 2017 complaint by the advocacy group HOP (Halte à l’Obsolescence Programmée). The prosecution alleges Epson blocked printing before cartridges were empty and used maintenance counters to shorten the lifespan of waste ink pads. Epson has “categorically rejected” the allegations. The first procedural hearing is scheduled for July 2, 2026.¹²¹³¹⁴ It is a criminal prosecution in France, not a mechanism for U.S. consumers to recover money.

If your printer was affected by a firmware update that blocked a third-party cartridge and you want to pursue Epson, the current route is an individual arbitration under the terms that came with your printer, not a class action filing. Watch for news of a settlement in the mass arbitration proceedings; that is the point at which a claims process for a broader group of customers would most plausibly appear.

1
Epson Settlement. In Re Epson Ink Cartridge Cases Settlement
2
Dobrowski LLP. In Re Epson Ink Cartridge Cases
3
The Recycler. Epson in Class Action Lawsuit for Firmware Updates
4
Resource Recycling. OEM Sued Over Impeding Third-Party Ink Usage
5
ClassAction.org. Mondigo v. Epson America Dismissal Order
6
Actionable Intelligence. William Mondigo et al. v. Epson America
7
American Bar Association. Mass Arbitration Update: The Battlefield Expands
8
Rulings.law. Epson America v. Arnoff, Tentative Ruling
9
PACER Monitor. Nicole Aaron et al. v. Epson America, Inc.
10
CourtListener. Nicole Aaron v. Epson America, Inc.
11
Actionable Intelligence. No Settlement Reached, So Litigation to Resume in Epson Inkjet Firmware Dispute
12
Right to Repair Europe. Lawsuit Against Epson
13
The Recycler. Epson to Appear Before French Court
14
Actionable Intelligence. HOP Reports That Epson Planned Obsolescence Case Is Headed to Trial in France