The class-action lawsuit involved certain PIXMA inkjet print-head issues experienced by end-users, including the “U052” error code, which may have caused such printers to display the following error code message: “The type of print head is incorrect. Install the correct print head.”
Under the settlement, Canon U.S.A., while denying any liability, has agreed to extend the warranty for these printers for nine months from the date of the expiration of the original one-year warranty.
Under the settlement, if a customer encountered a print-head error code during the original or extended warranty period, they may be eligible, upon the submission of the requisite documentation, for a cash payment of up to $50.00 or a coupon valued at up to $75.00 redeemable at Canon’s online store. Owners of the following Canon PIXMA printers are included under the settlement: iP3600, iP4700, iP4820, iP4920, iX6520, iX7000, MG5120, MG5220, MG5320, MG6120, MG6220, MG8120, MG8220, MP500, MP530, MP560, MP600, MP610, MP620, MP640, MP730, MP800, MP960, MP970, MP990, MX700, MX712, MX850, MX860, MX870, MX882, MX892, MX7600, PRO9000MKII, and PRO9500MKII.
The class-action lawsuit was filed in June 2014 in New York federal court on Jun 27th by Texas resident Marcus Ho, who alleges that Canon has long known about the defect but refused to issue a recall, and also refused to pay for repairs beyond the printers’ one-year warranty.
Robertson says that he purchased a Canon PIXMA MX860 Printer for personal use from an online retailer in March 2010. He alleged that in his experience and in general, “after limited use,” certain models of Canon’s printers display an error message, “U052 Wrong Printhead Error,” which “disables all Printer functions, including scanning and facsimile…render[ing] the Printers unsuitable for their principal and intended purpose.”
Canon product support has defined the error message U052 as “an indication that the Printer does not recognize the printhead or the printhead itself is faulty.”
The lawsuit also stated that Canon states “if the issue cannot be successfully resolved by trouble-shooting, which it could not in the case of Plaintiff Robertson, the Printer must be returned to Canon for service.” Robertson says in his lawsuit that such repair is usually more expensive than purchasing a new printer.
The Canon class-action lawsuit argued that Canon knew about the problem because it performed repairs on the faulty printers during the warranty period and failed to recall or extend the warranty for “what it knew to be a defective product.”