The Ownership Ban Is Happening

Summary of the video’s main claims and analysis

• HP openly frames many customers as “bad investments.” The video cites HP CEO Enrique L. Laws (January 2024 on CNBC), saying HP wants to reduce “unprofitable customers,” and that if a buyer “doesn’t print enough or doesn’t use our supplies,” that customer is a “bad investment.” The narrator interprets this as HP treating compliance (buying HP supplies) as the condition for the product to “work” as intended.

• The core business model is described as “razor-and-blades,” with ink treated as the real product. The narrator argues that printers are mainly a delivery mechanism for profit-heavy ink, and that the industry blocks cheaper third-party supplies. They compare this to razor blades, which often allow non-brand alternatives, but argue that printer inks allegedly do not.

• Authentication chips and firmware are portrayed as tools to prevent third-party ink/toner. The video explains that cartridges include chips that cause printers to refuse non-authenticated cartridges. It claims chips are unnecessary for printing functionality (citing an example that Canon allegedly shipped chip-less cartridges during a semiconductor shortage and printers still worked). It also describes HP “Dynamic Security” (introduced via a stealth firmware update in 2016) as a mechanism that makes printers reject non-HP cartridges—effectively bricking printing even when ink is not empty.

• Regulators are said to have sanctioned HP for using consumption/usage data and restricting warranty/legal guarantees. Key enforcement cited:

  • Italy: HP fined €10 million (2020) for using cartridge consumption data in ways that hindered legal guarantee conformity; the fine was upheld (noted as April 2024).
  • Australia: HP ordered to compensate ~2,000 customers (2018).
  • Other EU actions: the video claims settlements across multiple countries (e.g., ~€1.3 million referenced for Belgium/Italy/Spain/Portugal in 2022).
  • France: the video claims an active criminal court case related to planned obsolescence.
  • US: multiple class actions are said to be ongoing across multiple jurisdictions.

• HP’s defenses are presented as inconsistent and shifting depending on audience. The video says HP’s messaging changes:

  • To regulators: anti-counterfeiting/security framing
  • To shareholders: margin/profit framing
  • To customers: safety framing It cites Laws claiming cartridge-related issues could create “security issues,” and links this to HP’s own discussion of a possible malware pathway (via cartridge interface/chip and printer execution).

• Subscription models are presented as the “ownership” turning point (Instant Ink and HP Plus).

  • HP Instant Ink: the video claims cartridges will stop working after cancellation—even if physically half full—meaning purchased ink can become permanently disabled.
  • HP Plus: described as a long-term (“for the life of the printer”) commitment to use only original HP ink, with no real downgrade path. The video portrays this as a de facto lock-in contract.

• Strategic direction: HP wants printing to become subscription-only. The video quotes HP annual proxy materials and earnings-related statements indicating HP aims to shift toward subscriptions to drive recurring revenue. It also cites an HP CFO (Marie Myers) describing “locking” customers into long-term relationships after subscription bundling.

• Comparison to other brands (Brother, Epson/Canon tank models).

  • Brother: the video says Brother historically had better satisfaction rates and generally avoided some HP-like bricking behavior. It also notes an unresolved allegation (via Louis Rossmann) that a Brother firmware update may have degraded print quality or disabled color registration with non-Brother toner.
  • Epson EcoTank / Canon MegaTank (tank printers): the video presents refillable tank models as usually lower-cost and less vulnerable to the cartridge lock-in tactics described for HP-style systems.

Why the video argues this is legal in the UK/US

• US Supreme Court (patents) + DMCA + UK right-to-repair gap.
  • US Supreme Court (2017, Impression Products v. Lexmark): used to argue that patent-based post-sale restrictions generally fail, so the industry “moved” to other methods (chips/firmware/subscriptions).
  • DMCA (Section 1201): the video argues that firmware on printers can be treated as copyrighted “access control,” meaning circumvention tools can still face legal threats even if refilling/reuse is otherwise lawful.
  • UK “Right to Repair” carve-out (2021): the video claims printers were deliberately excluded from the UK’s right-to-repair regime, and that enforcement/coverage is limited (e.g., only professional repair access, without direct end-user spare-part rights).

Regulatory inaction and lobbying allegations

• Regulatory inaction is criticized as potentially influenced by industry lobbying. The video alleges the industry lobbied to protect the status quo, citing:

  • Reported US lobbying figures (HP spend mentioned).
  • Industry associations (e.g., ITI) referenced as having stated they held off adverse right-to-repair bills.
  • Claims that UK equivalents took no comparable action despite requests/letters and time.

EU is framed as moving faster than the UK

• The video references an EU right-to-repair directive (adopted mid-2024) and claims Article 56 restricts manufacturers from impeding repair via hardware/software unless justified.
• It also mentions EU eco-design rules possibly targeting “parts pairing” (cartridge chipping/authentication to reject non-original consumables), with a path to add printers via a delegated act.

Broader theme: “remote ownership” via connected devices

• The narrator generalizes the printer issue into a wider trend: companies selling products that phone home and may disable features remotely if terms aren’t met.
• Examples listed include John Deere, Tesla, Amazon Kindle deletion, and other connected devices.

Presenters / contributors (as named in the subtitles)

• Enrique Laws (HP CEO)
• Andy (video host/narrator)
• Marie Myers (HP CFO)
• Louis Rossmann (mentioned via alleged Brother firmware story)
• Janet Gunter (Restart Project co-founder)
• Yugo Valori (Restart Project co-founder)