Class Action Suit - Canon Printers

[rpcrowe]

I have had no problems with my Pixma Pro 9000 Mkii Printer but, I received this notice in my email. I thought that I might share it in case any other CiC member has had problems...

NOTICE OF PROPOSED CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT
In re Canon Inkjet Printer Litigation, Case No. 2:14-cv-3235-LDW-SIL
United States District Court, Eastern District of New York
A settlement of a proposed class action lawsuit has been reached with Canon U.S.A., Inc. (“Canon USA”) concerning certain models of Canon-brand PIXMA inkjet printers which are listed below. The individual plaintiffs who commenced the lawsuit claim that such printers suffer from a Print Head Issue, that is, an issue involving the print head installed in the printer and/or related to a U052 error message displayed by the printer. Canon USA denies the claim and asserts that the printers are not defective in any manner.
Printer Models
The settlement class includes all persons who purchased (1) in new condition from either Canon USA or one of its authorized Printer resellers, or (2) in refurbished condition directly from Canon USA, one or more of the following PIXMA printer models (collectively, the “Printers”): 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, including all models that are derivatives of the models identified above and which are signified by a suffix following the model numbers set forth above.
Relief
For Print Head Issues only, Canon USA shall extend the existing express, limited one-year warranty for the Printers for nine (9) months from the date that the warranty otherwise would have expired. Settlement class members who experienced a Print Head Issue may be entitled to the following additional relief, at their option: (1) a cash payment of up to fifty dollars ($50.00) or (2) a voucher valued at up to seventy-five dollars ($75.00) redeemable at Canon USA’s online store, www.shop.usa.canon.com.
Seeking Relief
To be eligible to obtain the relief described above, you must submit a completed Claim Form, with supporting documentation, on or before December 7, 2015. Claim Forms can be found at www.CanonInkjetPrinterSettlement.com

[russellsnr]

Hi, Not living in the USA but in the above it states " Canon USA denies the claim and asserts that the printers are not defective in any manner." Then it states " Canon USA shall extend the existing express, limited one-year warranty for the Printers for nine (9) months " Plus other offers from Canon. If the first statement is correct with Canon USA denies the claim and the "are not defective in any manner." why would they in the next breath offer all the extras quoted? Not only offer extras but also a claim form.

[Manfred M]

Hi, Not living in the USA but in the above it states " Canon USA denies the claim and asserts that the printers are not defective in any manner." Then it states " Canon USA shall extend the existing express, limited one-year warranty for the Printers for nine (9) months " Plus other offers from Canon. If the first statement is correct with Canon USA denies the claim and the "are not defective in any manner." why would they in the next breath offer all the extras quoted? Not only offer extras but also a claim form.

The cynical side of me says the lawyers made a fist full of money on this case and the printer owners are getting a pittance. As for Canon's call; I suspect they took a path that they suspect will cost them the least amount of money.

[IzzieK]

My husband was involved in a class action lawsuit of some kind that relates to an airplane something or parts thereof...what did he get in the mail? A checque for $0.10. I thought that was funny...All these thick papers that accompanied it and the envelopes sent and the checque are not even worth the amount printed on it...

[John 2]

The cynical side of me says the lawyers made a fist full of money on this case and the printer owners are getting a pittance. As for Canon's call; I suspect they took a path that they suspect will cost them the least amount of money.

Absolutely. Yesterday, I listened to a lawyer being interviewed on the BBC, talking about (AKA publicising) a class action being taken against VolksWagon in relation to what has recently come to light about their disguising actual diesel emission levels. The lawyer was encouraging others to contact the firm to take part. This is before it has been established that the UK is affected, if so which models have been affected and over what period of time. Apart from which, although what VW have done is dishonest in the extreme, so far as we know to date, the emission problems do not affect car owners (as opposed to the environment) in any material way. All of this has yet to be established. In other words, the client list this law firm are assembling is purely speculative. The interviewer ended up by suggesting that they were accident chasers. I think I agree.
It will be a different case if car manufacturers are found to have been massaging their fuel economy figures and car owners have been cheated out of an expectation of the cost of running their vehicles.

[Shadowman]

Usually there is a hold-out clause in class action suits if those affected want to pursue the case separately. That is probably why Canon made the statement.

[Manfred M]

Absolutely. Yesterday, I listened to a lawyer being interviewed on the BBC, talking about (AKA publicising) a class action being taken against VolksWagon in relation to what has recently come to light about their disguising actual diesel emission levels. The lawyer was encouraging others to contact the firm to take part. This is before it has been established that the UK is affected, if so which models have been affected and over what period of time. Apart from which, although what VW have done is dishonest in the extreme, so far as we know to date, the emission problems do not affect car owners (as opposed to the environment) in any material way. All of this has yet to be established. In other words, the client list this law firm are assembling is purely speculative. The interviewer ended up by suggesting that they were accident chasers. I think I agree.
It will be a different case if car manufacturers are found to have been massaging their fuel economy figures and car owners have been cheated out of an expectation of the cost of running their vehicles.

While I agree with your general direction, John, I would suggest that the car owners have indeed been affected.

1. The resale value of their vehicles has taken a major hit. I suspect VW diesels will be harder to sell and if they do sell, there will be a significant discount.

2. Any "fix" that VW puts out there will possibly affect performance, whether that is fuel economy or performance. Once again existing owners will end up with a vehicle that does not perform the same way as it currently does.

[Manfred M]

Usually there is a hold-out clause in class action suits if those affected want to pursue the case separately. That is probably why Canon made the statement.

Agreed, John. This I'm quite sure that this statement has been made so that no legal avenues are blocked to Canon's lawyers, should this occur. I've seen these types of clauses in other legal agreements and they are made so as to not limit any future flexibility. One can e sure that Canon isn't doing this just to be nice.

[DanK]

I believe it is common for manufacturers to offer a remedy while not admitting fault. I assume this is to avoid additional liability.

I received the note also and was startled because I have never heard anything about print head problems with Canon printers. I own three, two of which are used in the worst way possible--left idle for long periods of time--and the oldest of which must be a good 6 years old or more by now, and I have never had a single problem with any of them. I have never heard other owners of canon printers complain either.

[chauncey]

The cynical side of me says the lawyers made a fist full of money

That could be why they're ranked right up there with politicians/reporters/mass media
in the most disliked polls.

On the other hand, I have, on more than one occasion, had stellar outcomes from my use of them.

[John 2]

While I agree with your general direction, John, I would suggest that the car owners have indeed been affected.

1. The resale value of their vehicles has taken a major hit. I suspect VW diesels will be harder to sell and if they do sell, there will be a significant discount.

2. Any "fix" that VW puts out there will possibly affect performance, whether that is fuel economy or performance. Once again existing owners will end up with a vehicle that does not perform the same way as it currently does.

Manfred, that's why I said "All of this has yet to be established." The point is that the lawyers are talking up something that they don't yet know will apply and if it does apply, they don't yet know to what extent. However, that is not what this thread is about and I don't want to highjack it.

[DanK]

Manfred, that's why I said "All of this has yet to be established." The point is that the lawyers are talking up something that they don't yet know will apply and if it does apply, they don't yet know to what extent. However, that is not what this thread is about and I don't want to highjack it.

True, this is hijacking the thread, but the issues are of social importance, so what the heck>

Lots of this has been clearly established. Volkswagen has admitted that this affects 11 million cars, of which only 500K are in the US; many of the remainder are in Europe. The health consequences of the pollutants in question are to some degree known; see, for example, http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/29/up...n-us.html?_r=0. Ditto, the performance effects of some of the functions deactivated by the defeat software.

I don't know about the UK, but in the US, it matters which lawyers first assemble a group of plaintiffs certifiable as a class for purposes of a suit. That's a strong incentive to get started before all the details are known.

It's easy to disparage tort lawyers, and certainly, some ambulance chasers behave in reprehensible ways. But if one has the misfortune of suffering a serious, legally actionable harm--which my family has--one sees the other side.

All that said, I didn't even look to see what this Canon suit entitles me to.

[rpcrowe]

I was involved in a personal criminal lawsuit against the manufacturers of a prosthetic knee joint that needed to be removed within a month of installation. This resulted in terrible pain and suffering for the month. The joint was defective in that the manufacturer had not removed lubricating oil. The joint never adhered to my bone and I had a space between the joint and my lower leg bone. The joint would slam against the end of the bone every time I took a step and resulted in me losing about a half inch (~12mm or so) of bone.

The criminality (according to my attorney) was because this company was well aware of the problem and were involved in a class action civil suit due to their manufacture of hip joints with this same problem.

However, the Twin Towers tragedy of 911 resulted in the courts thinking that U.S. businesses were going to go down the tube. They turned around completely in favor of business and anti law suits. My attorney advised me to join the class action suit or else I might very well get no recompense at all.

As the result of the class action suit, I was awarded $50,000 U.S. Dollars (before attorney fees). That is a tidy sum but only about 1/10 of the expectations from the individual suit. My medical insurance paid for the second surgery.