cross-posted from: https://yiffit.net/post/1251788

Archived version: https://archive.ph/KYO3X

On Thursday, two more lawsuits were filed against Western Digital over its SanDisk Extreme series and My Passport portable SSDs. That brings the number of class-action complaints filed against Western Digital to three in two days.

In May, Ars Technica reported about customer complaints that claimed SanDisk Extreme SSDs were abruptly wiping data and becoming unmountable. Ars senior editor Lee Hutchinson also experienced this problem with two Extreme SSDs. Western Digital, which owns SanDisk, released a firmware update in late May, saying that currently shipping products weren't impacted. But the company didn't mention customer complaints of lost data, only that drives could "unexpectedly disconnect from a computer."

Further, last week The Verge claimed a replacement drive it received after the firmware update still wiped its data and became unreadable, and there are some complaints on Reddit pointing to recent problems with Extreme drives.

All three cases (one, two, and three) filed against Western Digital this week seek class-action certification (Ars was told it can take years for a judge to officially state certification and that cases may proceed with class-wide resolutions possibly occurring before official certification). Ian Sloss, one of the lawyers representing Matthew Perrin and Brian Bayerl in a complaint filed yesterday, told Ars he doesn't believe class-action certification will be a major barrier in a case "where there is a common defect in the firmware that is consistent in all devices." He added that defect cases are "ripe for class treatment."

Familiar stories

Both complaints filed yesterday reference Lee's ordeal and Ars' reporting on the matter, and they share new accounts that sound similar to complaints we've seen reported online.

Perrin and Bayerl's complaint says Perrin bought "at least" eight SanDisk Extreme SSDs off Amazon, including 2TB and 4TB Extreme and 4TB Extreme Pro models, and that Perrin "lost all data stored on several SanDisk SSDs."

Similarly, Bayerl reportedly bought "at least two" Extreme SSDs, including a 4TB Extreme, off Amazon. The complaint claims the drives still had busted firmware:

Plaintiff Bayerl has experienced the failure of two drives within minutes of each other and is now reluctant to use SanDisk Extreme products. Due to the nature of his work and the data on the devices, Plaintiff Bayerl spent nearly $8,000 on only partially successful efforts to retrieve the data from the failed drives through various data recovery third parties. These efforts also determined that the issue was caused by faulty internal firmware on the drives.

Perrin and Bayerl's complaint mentions the 2TB Extreme, which Western Digital hasn't officially confirmed as an affected device. A separate complaint filed on Wednesday mentions the 500GB and 1TB Extreme-series and My Passport models, which Western Digital hasn't said are affected.

Here are the drives Western Digital has said are affected:

• SanDisk Extreme Portable 4TB (SDSSDE61-4T00)
• SanDisk Extreme Pro Portable 4TB (SDSSDE81-4T00)
• SanDisk Extreme Pro Portable 2TB (SDSSDE81-2T00)
• SanDisk Extreme Pro Portable 1TB (SDSSDE81-1T00)
• Western Digital My Passport 4TB (WDBAGF0040BGY).

Perrin and Bayerl's complaint says that "the now-known issues with the defective SanDisk SSDs and significant risk of permanent data loss, has rendered the SanDisk SSDs worthless to individuals seeking reliable data storage."

"Worthless" is also used in the complaint filed Wednesday by Nathan Krum. The complaint filed Thursday on behalf of Saif Jafri also dubbed drives Western Digital named in its firmware update page, as well as the SanDisk Pro-G40 (PetaPixel recently claimed this drive broke after less than a month, but Ars has been unable to determine if the drive has a widespread problem), as "worthless."

Jafri's complaint says he bought an Extreme Pro (capacity not specified) because he was on an extended van trip and needed storage for drone footage, photos, and travel mementos. The drive reportedly "failed only a few weeks after" purchase.

"He had written data to the Drive no more than a handful of times, yet he nonetheless lost precious personal data," the complaint says.

The complaints also note that Western Digital's 30-day return and five-year warranty policies don't remedy lost data. The cases seek restitution, including damages, and for Western Digital to stop selling the affected drives until they're fixed or the problems are fully disclosed on all labels, packaging, and advertising.

Sloss told Ars that challenges of the case might include establishing how frequently drives failed after Western Digital shared its May firmware update.

"We believe the case is strong, that Western Digital’s response to the issue has been delayed, inadequate, and incomplete, and we believe people are continuing to purchase defective SSDs based on misleading information Western Digital has provided," Sloss said.

Sloss said that firms frequently agree to prosecute similar cases together, with one firm leading. He believes there could be even more law firms investigating claims that may file complaints against Western Digital.

Western Digital told Ars yesterday that it "does not comment on pending litigation."

Archived version: https://archive.ph/4QzFt

After 30 years, Simon* is facing the prospect of moving.

“I think we’ve been using their products since we built the house,” he says. “We’ve gone through dial-up and then eventually there was an ADSL connection.”

The Canberra-based iiNet customer has had the same email address since the 1990s. For millennials and younger, the notion of getting your email address from the company you pay for broadband might seem antiquated. Free online services such as Gmail, Hotmail, Outlook and others not tied to the internet provider are the default. It is now not uncommon for someone to set up their own email address in a domain of their choosing.

But in the nascent days of the internet before Google and Microsoft were the online internet behemoths, getting your email address from your internet service provider was the norm, and even attractive as a bundle package – and a way for internet providers to lock you into their service.

The cost for relatively small – by comparison to Google – companies to offer the service has gone up in server and administration costs without the economies of scale.

Australia’s largest internet provider – Telstra – ceased offering its Bigpond.com email addresses to new customers in 2016, shifting to using Telstra-branded email.

TPG – which owns brands that have historically offered email including iiNet all the way back to OzEmail – informed customers in July that it would migrate their email to a separate private service, the Messaging Company, by the end of November. Users will keep their exisiting email addresses on this service, and would get it free for the first year. After that, there will be options of paying for a service, or an ad-based free service after that.

The amount to be charged from next year has not yet been decided.

The announcement was met with outrage among users of the long-running web forum Whirlpool.

“It’s a shitty move. My wife has never set up a Gmail or Yahoo and only ever used her iiNet email address for her business as well as personal. This screws us royally,” one user said.

“Us oldies couldn’t start out using Gmail etc because they weren’t in existence 25 years ago,” another said.

“It’s a nightmare trying to change logins at many places.”

Simon too says he is not happy about the sudden shift, describing the move as “shrinkflation” given the change didn’t come with a reduction in his internet bill. He said he is still considering his options.

He says it is difficult as he viewed his email address as part of his identification, and with not everyone on social media, it’s also the only way some people might locate him.

“That email address is used to identify me in what I estimate to be probably 50 or 60 different locations,” he says. “I’ve sold a car on Carsales.com, I have a Gumtree account, Booking.com, Duolingo. I’ve got to go to all of those and say I’ve changed my email address.”

An RMIT associate professor in the school of engineering, Mark Gregory, says he is having to help move his father away from his iiNet email address.

“There’s going to be an impact on quite a few older people that took up some of those accounts with some of the companies that were absorbed by TPG,” he says. “I’m still at the stage where I’m trying to convince [my father] that he has to do it.”

Gregory says the shift reflects the changing business dynamics, and businesses looking to minimise costs. Even Google appears to be feeling the pinch, messaging its customers in recent weeks saying that accounts deemed inactive in the past two years could be deleted beginning 1 December 2023.

The other factor is the increasing security risk. Legacy systems, particularly those managed under a variety of absorbed companies, as with TPG, can over time become more at risk of a cybersecurity attack or breach. External providers who offer this service either in place of, or on behalf of the internet service provider are becoming seen as the more secure option.

Randall Cameron, the director of sales and marketing at AtMail, the parent firm of the Messaging Company, says there’s been a good opt-in rate for users wanting to keep their existing email addresses so far.

“When the bar tab that is TPG runs out, we’ve got to make sure people hang around. And if we say it’s now 20 bucks a drink they’re going to say, ‘Well, thanks, I’ll go somewhere else.’”

The Australian Communications Consumer Action Network chief executive, Andrew Williams, says that ultimately internet providers getting out of the email game is a good thing because it means customers don’t feel locked into one internet company. But it will take a while for people to get set up in new accounts if they decide to switch.

Gregory advises those who need to switch to a new account to start preparing now. That means figuring out which services you need to alert to switch to a new email address. “It’s not going to be as straight forward as some people might think, because when you’re talking to the older generation it becomes quite complex.”

TPG won’t say how many customers will be affected by the changeover, citing commercial confidentialities with the new email provider. A spokesperson says the strategic decision was made to allow TPG to focus on mobile and broadband services.

“Migrating our hosted email services to a specialist provider will ensure our customers have an updated and modernised webmail experience with the tools they require for all their email needs,” the spokesperson says.

“We appreciate this change could be challenging for some customers who have been with us a long time and thank them for their understanding and cooperation during this transition.”

There’s no sign Telstra will follow and stop providing services to its legacy Bigpond customers. While the company did not answer questions on how many still remained seven years after it stopped offering new accounts, the chief executive, Vicki Brady, said they were still very active.

“We have a really engaged Bigpond email customer base … which is why we made the decision to actually upgrade and make sure we had the right features and functions to be able to support their needs. So it’s absolutely important part of our broadband service for our customers.”

With the rise in data breaches, and the avalanche of spam and scams, the shift offers people the opportunity of a clean email slate, according to Andrew Williams, of the Australian Communications Consumer Action Network.

“Your email accounts do build up with a lot of redundant information over time,” he says. “So it’s a good opportunity to have a clean start and just really look at what was really important.”

*Name changed

Archived version: https://archive.ph/KYO3X

On Thursday, two more lawsuits were filed against Western Digital over its SanDisk Extreme series and My Passport portable SSDs. That brings the number of class-action complaints filed against Western Digital to three in two days.

In May, Ars Technica reported about customer complaints that claimed SanDisk Extreme SSDs were abruptly wiping data and becoming unmountable. Ars senior editor Lee Hutchinson also experienced this problem with two Extreme SSDs. Western Digital, which owns SanDisk, released a firmware update in late May, saying that currently shipping products weren't impacted. But the company didn't mention customer complaints of lost data, only that drives could "unexpectedly disconnect from a computer."

Further, last week The Verge claimed a replacement drive it received after the firmware update still wiped its data and became unreadable, and there are some complaints on Reddit pointing to recent problems with Extreme drives.

All three cases (one, two, and three) filed against Western Digital this week seek class-action certification (Ars was told it can take years for a judge to officially state certification and that cases may proceed with class-wide resolutions possibly occurring before official certification). Ian Sloss, one of the lawyers representing Matthew Perrin and Brian Bayerl in a complaint filed yesterday, told Ars he doesn't believe class-action certification will be a major barrier in a case "where there is a common defect in the firmware that is consistent in all devices." He added that defect cases are "ripe for class treatment."

Familiar stories

Both complaints filed yesterday reference Lee's ordeal and Ars' reporting on the matter, and they share new accounts that sound similar to complaints we've seen reported online.

Perrin and Bayerl's complaint says Perrin bought "at least" eight SanDisk Extreme SSDs off Amazon, including 2TB and 4TB Extreme and 4TB Extreme Pro models, and that Perrin "lost all data stored on several SanDisk SSDs."

Similarly, Bayerl reportedly bought "at least two" Extreme SSDs, including a 4TB Extreme, off Amazon. The complaint claims the drives still had busted firmware:

Plaintiff Bayerl has experienced the failure of two drives within minutes of each other and is now reluctant to use SanDisk Extreme products. Due to the nature of his work and the data on the devices, Plaintiff Bayerl spent nearly $8,000 on only partially successful efforts to retrieve the data from the failed drives through various data recovery third parties. These efforts also determined that the issue was caused by faulty internal firmware on the drives.

Perrin and Bayerl's complaint mentions the 2TB Extreme, which Western Digital hasn't officially confirmed as an affected device. A separate complaint filed on Wednesday mentions the 500GB and 1TB Extreme-series and My Passport models, which Western Digital hasn't said are affected.

Here are the drives Western Digital has said are affected:

• SanDisk Extreme Portable 4TB (SDSSDE61-4T00)
• SanDisk Extreme Pro Portable 4TB (SDSSDE81-4T00)
• SanDisk Extreme Pro Portable 2TB (SDSSDE81-2T00)
• SanDisk Extreme Pro Portable 1TB (SDSSDE81-1T00)
• Western Digital My Passport 4TB (WDBAGF0040BGY).

Perrin and Bayerl's complaint says that "the now-known issues with the defective SanDisk SSDs and significant risk of permanent data loss, has rendered the SanDisk SSDs worthless to individuals seeking reliable data storage."

"Worthless" is also used in the complaint filed Wednesday by Nathan Krum. The complaint filed Thursday on behalf of Saif Jafri also dubbed drives Western Digital named in its firmware update page, as well as the SanDisk Pro-G40 (PetaPixel recently claimed this drive broke after less than a month, but Ars has been unable to determine if the drive has a widespread problem), as "worthless."

Jafri's complaint says he bought an Extreme Pro (capacity not specified) because he was on an extended van trip and needed storage for drone footage, photos, and travel mementos. The drive reportedly "failed only a few weeks after" purchase.

"He had written data to the Drive no more than a handful of times, yet he nonetheless lost precious personal data," the complaint says.

The complaints also note that Western Digital's 30-day return and five-year warranty policies don't remedy lost data. The cases seek restitution, including damages, and for Western Digital to stop selling the affected drives until they're fixed or the problems are fully disclosed on all labels, packaging, and advertising.

Sloss told Ars that challenges of the case might include establishing how frequently drives failed after Western Digital shared its May firmware update.

"We believe the case is strong, that Western Digital’s response to the issue has been delayed, inadequate, and incomplete, and we believe people are continuing to purchase defective SSDs based on misleading information Western Digital has provided," Sloss said.

Sloss said that firms frequently agree to prosecute similar cases together, with one firm leading. He believes there could be even more law firms investigating claims that may file complaints against Western Digital.

Western Digital told Ars yesterday that it "does not comment on pending litigation."

Archived version: https://archive.ph/9WPwx

The Sotheby's auction house has been named as a defendant in a lawsuit filed by investors who regret buying Bored Ape Yacht Club NFTs that sold for highly inflated prices during the NFT craze in 2021. A Sotheby's auction duped investors by giving the Bored Ape NFTs "an air of legitimacy... to generate investors' interest and hype around the Bored Ape brand," the class-action lawsuit claims.

The boost to Bored Ape NFT prices provided by the auction "was rooted in deception," said the lawsuit filed in US District Court for the Central District of California. It wasn't revealed at the time of the auction that the buyer was the now-disgraced FTX, the lawsuit said.

"Sotheby's representations that the undisclosed buyer was a 'traditional' collector had misleadingly created the impression that the market for BAYC NFTs had crossed over to a mainstream audience," the lawsuit claimed. Lawsuit plaintiffs say that harmed investors bought the NFTs "with a reasonable expectation of profit from owning them."

Sotheby's sold a lot of 101 Bored Ape NFTs for $24.4 million at its "Ape In!" auction in September 2021, well above the pre-auction estimates of $12 million to $18 million. That's an average price of over $241,000, but Bored Ape NFTs now sell for a floor price of about $50,000 worth of ether cryptocrurrency, according to CoinGecko data accessed today.

Investors previously sued Bored Ape creator Yuga Labs, four company executives, and various celebrity promoters including Paris Hilton, Gwyneth Paltrow, Kevin Hart, Snoop Dogg, Serena Williams, Madonna, Jimmy Fallon, Steph Curry, and Justin Bieber. The original class-action was filed in December 2022, and Sotheby's was added as a defendant in an amended complaint submitted on August 4.

Yuga describes its collection of 10,000 Bored Ape NFTs as "unique digital collectibles living on the Ethereum blockchain" that double as a "Yacht Club membership card." The website has some "members-only" areas. "When you buy a Bored Ape, you're not simply buying an avatar or a provably rare piece of art," the NFT collection's website says. "You are gaining membership access to a club whose benefits and offerings will increase over time. Your Bored Ape can serve as your digital identity, and open digital doors for you."

Lawsuit: Yuga “colluded” with Sotheby’s

The amended lawsuit alleges that "Yuga colluded with fine arts broker, Defendant Sotheby's, to run a deceptive auction." After the sale, a Sotheby's representative described the winning bidder during a Twitter Spaces event as a "traditional" collector, the lawsuit said.

The lawsuit said it turned out the auction buyer was now-bankrupt crypto exchange FTX, whose founder Sam Bankman-Fried is in jail awaiting trial on criminal charges. Ethereum blockchain transaction data shows that after the auction, "Sotheby's transferred the lot of BAYC NFTs to wallet address 0xf8e0C93Fd48B4C34A4194d3AF436b13032E641F3,77 which, upon information and belief, is owned/controlled by FTX," the complaint said. Speculation that FTX was the buyer had been percolating since at least January 2023.

The lawsuit alleges that Yuga Labs and Sotheby's violated the California Unfair Competition Law, the California Corporate Securities Law, the US Securities Exchange Act, and the California Corporations Code. The plaintiffs also claim that Sotheby's Metaverse, an NFT trading platform opened after the auction, "operated (or attempted to operate) as an unregistered broker of securities."

"FTX has several deep ties to Yuga such that it would be mutually beneficial for both Yuga and FTX (as well as Sotheby's) if the BAYC NFT collection were to rise in price and trading volume activity. Upon information and belief, given the extensive financial interests shared by Yuga, Sotheby's and FTX, each knew that FTX was the real buyer of the lot of BAYC NFTs at the Sotheby's auction at the time that Sotheby's representatives were publicly representing that a 'traditional' buyer had made the purchase," the lawsuit said. FTX is not named as a defendant.

Ape prices soared, then plummeted

After the auction, the price of Bored Ape digital assets hit a new high and kept rising for months. It peaked at over $420,000 in April 2022 but plummeted to about $90,000 six weeks later, according to CoinGecko.

The class action lawsuit's named plaintiffs are Johnny Johnson, Ezra Boekweg, Mario Palombini, and Adam Titcher. They are trying to get certification of a class consisting of "all investors who purchased Yuga's non-fungible tokens ('NFTs') or ApeCoin tokens ('ApeCoin') between April 23, 2021 and the present." There were over 103,000 account holders of Yuga securities as of December 1, 2022, the lawsuit said.

"While the Executive Defendants made hundreds of millions of dollars, investors were left with NFTs worth a fraction of their artificially inflated value," the original version of the complaint in December said.

Yuga and other defendants have a September 12 deadline to file motions to dismiss the complaint. Sotheby's told CNN this week that the "allegations in this suit are baseless, and Sotheby's is prepared to vigorously defend itself." Yuga Labs similarly called the allegations "completely without merit or factual basis."

Archived version: https://archive.ph/9WPwx

The Sotheby's auction house has been named as a defendant in a lawsuit filed by investors who regret buying Bored Ape Yacht Club NFTs that sold for highly inflated prices during the NFT craze in 2021. A Sotheby's auction duped investors by giving the Bored Ape NFTs "an air of legitimacy... to generate investors' interest and hype around the Bored Ape brand," the class-action lawsuit claims.

The boost to Bored Ape NFT prices provided by the auction "was rooted in deception," said the lawsuit filed in US District Court for the Central District of California. It wasn't revealed at the time of the auction that the buyer was the now-disgraced FTX, the lawsuit said.

"Sotheby's representations that the undisclosed buyer was a 'traditional' collector had misleadingly created the impression that the market for BAYC NFTs had crossed over to a mainstream audience," the lawsuit claimed. Lawsuit plaintiffs say that harmed investors bought the NFTs "with a reasonable expectation of profit from owning them."

Sotheby's sold a lot of 101 Bored Ape NFTs for $24.4 million at its "Ape In!" auction in September 2021, well above the pre-auction estimates of $12 million to $18 million. That's an average price of over $241,000, but Bored Ape NFTs now sell for a floor price of about $50,000 worth of ether cryptocrurrency, according to CoinGecko data accessed today.

Investors previously sued Bored Ape creator Yuga Labs, four company executives, and various celebrity promoters including Paris Hilton, Gwyneth Paltrow, Kevin Hart, Snoop Dogg, Serena Williams, Madonna, Jimmy Fallon, Steph Curry, and Justin Bieber. The original class-action was filed in December 2022, and Sotheby's was added as a defendant in an amended complaint submitted on August 4.

Yuga describes its collection of 10,000 Bored Ape NFTs as "unique digital collectibles living on the Ethereum blockchain" that double as a "Yacht Club membership card." The website has some "members-only" areas. "When you buy a Bored Ape, you're not simply buying an avatar or a provably rare piece of art," the NFT collection's website says. "You are gaining membership access to a club whose benefits and offerings will increase over time. Your Bored Ape can serve as your digital identity, and open digital doors for you."

Lawsuit: Yuga “colluded” with Sotheby’s

The amended lawsuit alleges that "Yuga colluded with fine arts broker, Defendant Sotheby's, to run a deceptive auction." After the sale, a Sotheby's representative described the winning bidder during a Twitter Spaces event as a "traditional" collector, the lawsuit said.

The lawsuit said it turned out the auction buyer was now-bankrupt crypto exchange FTX, whose founder Sam Bankman-Fried is in jail awaiting trial on criminal charges. Ethereum blockchain transaction data shows that after the auction, "Sotheby's transferred the lot of BAYC NFTs to wallet address 0xf8e0C93Fd48B4C34A4194d3AF436b13032E641F3,77 which, upon information and belief, is owned/controlled by FTX," the complaint said. Speculation that FTX was the buyer had been percolating since at least January 2023.

The lawsuit alleges that Yuga Labs and Sotheby's violated the California Unfair Competition Law, the California Corporate Securities Law, the US Securities Exchange Act, and the California Corporations Code. The plaintiffs also claim that Sotheby's Metaverse, an NFT trading platform opened after the auction, "operated (or attempted to operate) as an unregistered broker of securities."

"FTX has several deep ties to Yuga such that it would be mutually beneficial for both Yuga and FTX (as well as Sotheby's) if the BAYC NFT collection were to rise in price and trading volume activity. Upon information and belief, given the extensive financial interests shared by Yuga, Sotheby's and FTX, each knew that FTX was the real buyer of the lot of BAYC NFTs at the Sotheby's auction at the time that Sotheby's representatives were publicly representing that a 'traditional' buyer had made the purchase," the lawsuit said. FTX is not named as a defendant.

Ape prices soared, then plummeted

After the auction, the price of Bored Ape digital assets hit a new high and kept rising for months. It peaked at over $420,000 in April 2022 but plummeted to about $90,000 six weeks later, according to CoinGecko.

The class action lawsuit's named plaintiffs are Johnny Johnson, Ezra Boekweg, Mario Palombini, and Adam Titcher. They are trying to get certification of a class consisting of "all investors who purchased Yuga's non-fungible tokens ('NFTs') or ApeCoin tokens ('ApeCoin') between April 23, 2021 and the present." There were over 103,000 account holders of Yuga securities as of December 1, 2022, the lawsuit said.

"While the Executive Defendants made hundreds of millions of dollars, investors were left with NFTs worth a fraction of their artificially inflated value," the original version of the complaint in December said.

Yuga and other defendants have a September 12 deadline to file motions to dismiss the complaint. Sotheby's told CNN this week that the "allegations in this suit are baseless, and Sotheby's is prepared to vigorously defend itself." Yuga Labs similarly called the allegations "completely without merit or factual basis."

Archived version: https://archive.ph/3vfmc

How much ink does an all-in-one printer need in order to fax a document? Or to scan one to your computer? The obvious answer is "none." But if you own certain printers from companies like HP and Canon, you won't be able to use core features unless the device has ink—even if those features have nothing to do with ink.

Unfortunately, all-in-one printers arbitrarily demanding ink to perform non-printing functions isn't a new frustration. And that's despite some companies having printers that can scan without ink. Clearly, scanning or faxing without requiring an ink cartridge would improve users' experience—and they've illustrated that through class-action lawsuits. But this hasn't stopped printer makers from fighting to keep the nettlesome practice.

No ink, no scan

Since mid-2022, HP has been fighting a class-action lawsuit alleging that certain all-in-one printer models won't scan or fax without ink and that HP doesn't properly disclose this to shoppers. On January 13, 2023, the complaint was dismissed but allowed to be amended (you can view the amended complaint here: [PDF]), and on August 10, a Northern District of California judge dismissed HP's motion to dismiss the amended complaint [PDF].

HP Envy 6455e and HP Deskjet 2655 purchasers Gary Freund and Wayne McMath filed the complaint, which states that HP printers are designed to enter an error state when low or out of ink, preventing usage until the installment of a new ink cartridge. The plaintiffs are also peeved that HP marketing and advertising doesn't clearly disclose this, the complaint says. The complaint also notes that an HP support agent has said that HP printers are "designed in such a way that with the empty cartridge or without the cartridge the printer will not function."

"HP’s All-in-One Printers do not work as advertised. Ink is not a necessary component to scan or to fax a document," the complaint reads.

It adds:

Tying the scan or fax capabilities of the All-In-One Printers to ink contained in the devices offers no benefit and only serves to disadvantage and harm consumers financially. However, tying the scan or fax capabilities of the All-In-One Printers to ink contained in the devices does, however [sic], serve to benefit HP.

Anyone who's owned an inkjet printer knows how expensive ink can be. That suggests a reason to push people to buy ink through tactics like blocking core features if no ink is present and reportedly selling printers below cost. Ink-buying programs have also become cash cows. HP in 2021, for example, said its Instant Ink subscription business was worth $500 million, per CRN. In its Q2 2023 financial report, HP named Instant Ink a key growth area.

The complaint against HP says:

Indeed, HP designs its All-in-One printer products so they will not work without ink. Yet, HP does not disclose this fact to consumers. … Even were it technically possible to scan a document without all ink cartridges present, HP does not disclose any 'workaround' to consumers in any of the product packaging nor in any of HP’s advertising and marketing materials regarding its multi-function devices.

The complaint seeks monetary damages as well as the end of HP's "misleading advertising and marketing campaign" and for HP to "engage in a corrective campaign to inform consumers of the misleading advertising."

Here are all the HP printer models listed in the complaint:

• HP Deskjet 2755e
• HP DeskJet 3755
• HP DeskJet 4155e
• HP ENVY 6055e
• HP ENVY 6075
• HP ENVY 6455
• HP ENVY Pro 6475
• HP OfficeJet 250 Mobile
• HP OfficeJet Pro 7740 Wide Format
• HP OfficeJet Pro 8025
• HP DeskJet 2622
• HP DeskJet 2655

HP declined to comment on this story.

Canon's doing it, too

HP isn't the only company demanding ink for scans and faxes. It's not even the only one that has faced litigation over it.

As noticed by The Verge, Canon back in March settled a class-action lawsuit [PDF] stating that Canon all-in-one printers can't scan or fax with low or empty ink cartridges and its "advertising claims are false, misleading, and reasonably likely to deceive the public."

The settlement terms weren't disclosed, and Canon didn't respond to Ars Technica's request for comment. But here are the models listed in that complaint:

• MAXIFY GX7020
• MAXIFY GX6020
• PIXMA TS3520
• PIXMA G3260
• PIXMA G7020
• PIXMA G2260
• PIXMA MX330
• PIXMA MX452
• PIXMA TS9520
• PIXMA TR8620
• PIXMA TS6420
• PIXMA TS6320
• PIXMA TR4520
• PIXMA MG3620
• PIXMA MG2522
• PIXMA TS3320
• PIXMA TR7020
• PIXMA TS9521C
• PIXMA TS8320
• PIXMA TR8520
• PIXMA TR7520
• "and any and all predecessor models"

Similarly to the HP situation, representatives on Canon's support forum allegedly confirmed that certain all-in-one printer models require "all ink tanks installed and they must all contain ink in order to use the functions of the printer" and that "there is no workaround for this."

However, the posts that are linked to in the complaint (here and here) as of November 22, 2022, have a comment from a moderator saying, "It's possible to scan with an empty ink tank or cartridge." The support page provides instructions for disabling the function that detects ink levels.

Canon didn't explain why its printers ever required ink to scan in the first place. But the company has at least agreed to instruct users on disabling the ink requirement, which is better than where HP is currently.

Semantics prioritized over customers

As of this writing, HP doesn't seem to be working toward enabling its printers to scan and fax without ink. When trying to get the complaint dismissed, HP claimed that support agents who said printers are designed to not scan without ink don't represent HP and were not referring to printer models owned by the complaint's plaintiffs.

The printer industry has long had an issue with customer trust. HP, for instance, has bricked third-party ink (and issued other problematic printer firmware updates), along with the company's controversial HP+ program and region-locked printers . HP has already paid settlements for abruptly bricking third-party ink via its Dynamic Security "feature."

The Verge noticed that HP at least changed its language for the Envy 6455e's Amazon product page to say that you can "print, scan, and copy from your phone—from whenever, wherever" to "print, scan, and copy from your phone—from anywhere."

Such semantic games feel more like HP seeking a loophole than trying to please customers.

Such corporation-first tactics may be why Epson thinks it's dunking on competitors with its own support page dedicated to this topic. It reads, "Since 2008, all Epson printers will scan even when there is little or no usable ink left in the cartridge."

But, as is often the case with printers, a sneaky little caveat could abruptly ruin your day. As the support page also states:

However, all of the genuine Epson cartridges must be installed in the printer, even if depleted of usable ink and the printer displays the replace cartridge message.

So you still need an Epson ink cartridge to scan. If you happened to have tossed your ink cartridge when it became useless, your all-in-one printer could be virtually useless, too. (Epson didn't respond to a request for comment.)

It's alarming that printer makers know customers feel swindled and confused—but won't eliminate the problematic design. Printer vendors have become too bold in expecting customers to accept wordplay, settlements, and confusing support responses. Class-action lawsuits may light a fire under these companies, but it shouldn't be up to disgruntled customers to complain to support agents, lawyers, and judges.

If printer companies can't deliver a reliable, easy experience, customers will have no choice but to consider alternatives.

Archived version: https://archive.ph/3PdeS

We’ve been focused on creating a great gaming experience for our members since 2021 when we added mobile games to Netflix. Our goal has always been to have a game for everyone, and we are working hard to meet members where they are with an accessible, smooth, and ubiquitous service. Today, we’re taking the first step in making games playable on every device where our members enjoy Netflix — TVs, computers, and mobile.

We are rolling out a limited beta test to a small number of members in Canada and the UK on select TVs starting today, and on PCs and Macs through Netflix.com on supported browsers in the next few weeks. Two games will be part of this initial test: Oxenfree from Night School Studio, a Netflix Game Studio, and Molehew’s Mining Adventure, a gem-mining arcade game. To play our games on TV, we're introducing a controller that we already have in our hands most of the day — our phones. Members on PCs and Macs can play on Netflix.com with a keyboard and mouse.

This limited beta is meant to test our game streaming technology and controller, and to improve the member experience over time. Games on TV will operate on select devices from our initial partners including: Amazon Fire TV Streaming Media Players, Chromecast with Google TV, LG TVs, Nvidia Shield TV, Roku devices and TVs, Samsung Smart TVs, and Walmart ONN. Additional devices will be added on an ongoing basis.

By making games available on more devices, we hope to make games even easier to play for our members around the world. While we’re still very early in our games journey, we’re excited to bring joy to members with games. We look forward to hearing feedback from our beta testers and sharing more as we continue on the road ahead.

Archived version: https://archive.ph/3PdeS

We’ve been focused on creating a great gaming experience for our members since 2021 when we added mobile games to Netflix. Our goal has always been to have a game for everyone, and we are working hard to meet members where they are with an accessible, smooth, and ubiquitous service. Today, we’re taking the first step in making games playable on every device where our members enjoy Netflix — TVs, computers, and mobile.

We are rolling out a limited beta test to a small number of members in Canada and the UK on select TVs starting today, and on PCs and Macs through Netflix.com on supported browsers in the next few weeks. Two games will be part of this initial test: Oxenfree from Night School Studio, a Netflix Game Studio, and Molehew’s Mining Adventure, a gem-mining arcade game. To play our games on TV, we're introducing a controller that we already have in our hands most of the day — our phones. Members on PCs and Macs can play on Netflix.com with a keyboard and mouse.

This limited beta is meant to test our game streaming technology and controller, and to improve the member experience over time. Games on TV will operate on select devices from our initial partners including: Amazon Fire TV Streaming Media Players, Chromecast with Google TV, LG TVs, Nvidia Shield TV, Roku devices and TVs, Samsung Smart TVs, and Walmart ONN. Additional devices will be added on an ongoing basis.

By making games available on more devices, we hope to make games even easier to play for our members around the world. While we’re still very early in our games journey, we’re excited to bring joy to members with games. We look forward to hearing feedback from our beta testers and sharing more as we continue on the road ahead.

Archived version: https://archive.ph/HGJKo

In April 2012, Tim Meeks was at a music product trade show in Anaheim, California, when he got a tap on the shoulder. Stevie Wonder was in town. He had heard about the instrument Meeks had invented – a guitar-piano hybrid called the harpejji – and wanted to give it a go. Minutes later, the two men were hunched over the instrument flanked by five bodyguards, as Meeks moved the blind musician’s thumbs and forefingers across the fretboard to demonstrate how to play. “I love it,” said Wonder. “How soon can I get one?”

This was a turning point for Meeks, who has built and sold harpejjis from a workshop in Maryland since 2007. Initially, sales were slow. But a decade’s worth of harpejji performances by Wonder – plus support from Jacob Collier, Harry Connick Jr and jazz producer Cory Henry – have changed that. Now, Marcodi Musical Products, Meeks’ company, has sold nearly 1,500 of them, making him one of the few people alive to have invented a successful new instrument.

“I’m a very average musician. The thought of me showing Stevie Wonder how to play something is just absurd,” says Meeks. “But it’s all about the artists. Stevie can choose any instrument he wants to, and if he wants to play this one, people better pay attention.”

A full-size harpejji is about a metre long and sells for £5,100. The flat, birch body holds 24 strings with frets beneath. It works a bit like a piano – but instead of pressing a key you’re pressing the strings – and a bit like an electric guitar, where magnetic pickups send the sound to an amplifier. “I wanted it to sound like an organic stringed instrument, but use my piano chops rather than learn guitar for three years,” Meeks says. “I guess a lot of the best inventions come out of laziness.”

The timbre is guitar-like; the notes run in whole tones across the strings and semitones up the frets, yielding fresh harmonic possibilities. “I had thousands of sounds available on a keyboard but none of them felt right,” Meeks says. “I wasn’t trying to dazzle the world with a new sound, rather find a fresh way to think about playing music.”

Instrument design is a fast-evolving field. Whole schools are even devoted to it. Queen Mary University and Imperial College London jointly run The Augmented Instruments Laboratory, where researcher Lia Mice has developed, among other things, a one-handed violin (designed for people with disabilities) and chaos bells – a 4 sq metre frame of steel tubes that the player touches, tilts and strikes to produce a cacophonous metallic feedback loop.

There is even a gold-standard annual contest for inventors: the Guthman Musical Instrument Competition, run by the Georgia Institute of Technology in Atlanta. This year’s winner was the zen flute: via a mouthpiece, it digitally translates the shape of your mouth into sound. There was also a synthesiser controlled by an abacus, and a microtonal clarinet that, rather than using tone holes, has a flexible electromagnetic strip to control pitch.

Nonetheless, even the most esteemed inventions rarely make it past the prototype stage. While the 20th century brought electric guitars, drum machines and synthesisers, popularising a new instrument is now trickier.

Part of the problem is that artists can produce any sound under the sun using a computer, says Steve Dunnington, product development chief at Moog, the company that developed the first commercially available synthesiser in 1964. “For many musicians, making music happens by typing lines of code or creating sounds on a DAW [digital audio workstation, such as GarageBand],” he says. “We just tend not to think of it as ‘instrumental’ in the same way because they’re not holding something, blowing air into it or whacking it.”

Meeks thinks many inventors are going down technological rabbit holes rather than making something usable. Most musicians “just want to have a voice”, he says. “A lot of these [instruments] are cool, they have features and they are powerful. But does anybody really want to play them, learn them or go and see someone else perform on them?”

Of course, not all inventions are dreamed up with others in mind. For Mice, the chaos bells inventor, crafting the instrument is part of making her music. “Plus,” she adds, “there’s something super punk rock about making your own instrument.”

The harpejji, meanwhile, is on course to exceed $1m of sales in 2023 – a record year – and Marcodi Musical Products recently moved to bigger premises near Baltimore. Meeks even had another “monumental” moment at the end of July, working in his new office with a Spotify-curated playlist on in the background. “About six songs in I realised: ‘Wait a minute, I recognise that sound.’”

The track was Harpejji I by Vulfmon (AKA Jack Stratton, drummer of the cult funk outfit Vulfpeck), which features the instrument. “That’s the first time since founding the company that harpejji music came to my ears randomly without me seeking it out,” he says. “Now I truly feel like it’s got a life of its own.”

Archived version: https://archive.ph/JsTV6

The US broadband industry is united in opposition to a requirement that Internet service providers list all of their monthly fees. Five lobby groups representing cable companies, fiber and DSL providers, and mobile operators have repeatedly urged the Federal Communications Commission to eliminate the requirement before new broadband labeling rules take effect.

The trade associations petitioned the FCC in January to change the rules and renewed their call last week in a filing and in a meeting with FCC officials. The requirement that ISPs list all their monthly fees "would add unnecessary complexity and burdens to the label for consumers and providers and could result in some providers having to create many labels for any given plan," the groups said in the filing on Friday.

The trade groups said the FCC should instead "require providers to include an explanatory statement that such fees may apply and that they vary by jurisdiction, similar to the Commission's treatment of government-imposed taxes," or require "the display of the maximum level of government-imposed fees that might be passed through, so that consumers would not experience bill shock with respect to such fees."

The filing was submitted by NCTA-The Internet & Television Association, which represents Comcast, Charter, Cox, and other cable companies. The NCTA's ex parte filing described a meeting with FCC officials that also included wireless industry trade group CTIA and USTelecom, which represents telcos including AT&T, Verizon, Lumen (formerly CenturyLink), Frontier, and Windstream.

The meeting was attended by two other groups representing smaller ISPs: NTCA-The Rural Broadband Association and ACA Connects-America's Communications Association. The trade groups met on Wednesday with the legal advisors to FCC Chairwoman Jessica Rosenworcel and Commissioner Brendan Carr, according to the filing.

Comcast accused of “trying to create loopholes”

Comcast submitted its own filing urging the FCC to scrap the rules in June. The calls to weaken the FCC's truth-in-billing rules angered consumer advocates, as we wrote at the time. "The label hasn't even reached consumers yet, but Comcast is already trying to create loopholes. This request would allow the big ISPs to continue hiding the true cost of service and frustrating customers with poor service," Joshua Stager, policy director at media advocacy group Free Press, told Ars.

Congress required the FCC to implement broadband labels with exact prices for Internet service plans in a 2021 law, but gave the FCC some leeway in how to structure the rules. The FCC adopted specific label rules in November 2022.

The labels must be displayed to consumers at the point of sale and include monthly price, additional charges, speeds, data caps, additional charges for data, and other information. The FCC rules aren't in force yet because they are subject to a federal Office of Management and Budget (OMB) review under the US Paperwork Reduction Act.

ISPs object to a portion of the FCC order that says, "providers must list all recurring monthly fees" including "all charges that providers impose at their discretion, i.e., charges not mandated by a government." The five trade groups complain that this would require ISPs "to display the pass-through of fees imposed by federal, state, or local government agencies on the consumer broadband label."

But just because an ISP says a fee is related to a government charge doesn't mean that ISPs have to break them out separately. ISPs could instead include all costs in their advertised rates to give potential customers a clearer idea of how much they would have to pay each month.

"A provider that opts to combine all of its monthly discretionary fees with its base monthly price may do so and list that total price. In that case, the provider need not separately itemize those fees in the label," the FCC order said.

Non-mandatory fees

Discretionary charges "include those the provider collects to recoup from consumers its costs associated with government programs but where the government has not mandated such collection, e.g., USF [Universal Service Fund] contributions," according to the FCC. Comcast said the non-mandatory fees also include pass-through of state and local government fees.

The FCC order said the requirement to list "all charges that providers impose at their discretion" is meant to help broadband users "understand which charges are part of the provider's rate structure, and which derive from government assessments or programs." These fees must have "simple, accurate, [and] easy-to-understand name[s]," the FCC order said.

"Further, the requirement will allow consumers to more meaningfully compare providers' rates and service packages, and to make more informed decisions when purchasing broadband services. Providers must list fees such as monthly charges associated with regulatory programs and fees for the rental or leasing of modem and other network connection equipment," the FCC said.

Harold Feld, senior VP of consumer advocacy group Public Knowledge, told Ars in June that the FCC "should reject the request to create loopholes which would obscure what fees providers decide to pass on versus those that are mandated by state law. It is an effort to pass blame to the state which properly belongs to the ISP."

Debate over record-keeping rule

ISPs also object to a record-keeping requirement designed to ensure that ISPs follow the rules when they provide labels through "alternate sales channels" such as retail stores or customer service phone calls. ISPs can meet the label requirement in alternate sales channels either by providing a hard copy of the label or by "directing the consumer to the specific web page on which the label appears."

ISPs that don't provide hard copies of the label to prospective customers in those sales channels must document each instance in which they direct a consumer to a label.

"Requiring that providers collect identifying information and document every customer interaction would be highly disruptive to consumers seeking information through alternative sales channels and would impose significant burdens on providers of all sizes," the trade groups told the FCC. The trade groups want the FCC to "clarify that a provider satisfies these rules by developing appropriate business practices to promote distribution of the label through alternative sales channels and retaining documentation of these practices for two years."

Latino advocacy group ALLvanza also objected to the data-collection rule on privacy grounds, saying, "Many Latinos are already hesitant and/or unwilling to provide identifying information to companies or the government due to privacy concerns, fear of discrimination, potential immigration status issues, mistrust of institutions, and cultural preferences for privacy."

ISPs could avoid the requirement to collect identifying information from consumers in retail stores by providing hard copies of the label. The FCC defended the compliance plan in a submission to the OMB last month as part of the Paperwork Reduction Act review, saying it needs detailed information to ensure ISPs follow the rules.

When ISPs choose not to provide hard copies of the labels in alternate sales channels, the FCC said it needs details on each customer interaction to "allow the Commission to investigate and enforce providers' obligation to make the label available to consumers at each point of sale."

The FCC also defended itself against industry accusations that the rule is too vague. "The Commission stated in the Broadband Label Order that '[p]roviders must document each instance when it directs a consumer to a label at an alternate sales channel and retain such documentation for two years.' We believe it is unambiguous that this would include the identity of each consumer," the FCC said.

Two American tourists have been found sleeping inside the Eiffel Tower after getting stuck while drunk, according to prosecutors.

The two men were found by security guards in the early hours of Monday.

They paid to scale the Parisian landmark at around 22:40 (21:40 BST) on Sunday and hopped security barriers while climbing down, police said.

They were found in an area normally closed to the public between the tower’s second and third levels.

The men “appear to have got stuck because of how drunk they were”, Paris prosecutors told the AFP news agency.

A specialist firefighter unit for rescuing people from heights were sent to recover the men, the agency reported.

The usual opening time of 09:00 was delayed due to the discovery of the inebriated pair.

They did not pose any threat, said Sete, the publicly-owned Eiffel Tower operator.

Both men were questioned by police in Paris, while Sete said it would file a criminal complaint.

It comes after two bomb scares at the tower on Saturday forced the monument to be evacuated twice in the same day.

French police have launched an investigation after the false bomb threats were made via posts on a gaming site and a platform for online contact between citizens and police.

The Eiffel Tower, which was built in the 1880s and stands at 984ft (300m), attracted 5.8 million visitors last year.

Archived version: https://archive.ph/kBVee

The publishing industry has been mired in debate in recent years about editing older books to remove content that could be deemed offensive.

Even the prime minister became involved in February after the publisher Puffin Books hired sensitivity readers to rewrite parts of Roald Dahl’s books to ensure they “can continue to be enjoyed by all today”. The development prompted Rishi Sunak to say that publishers “shouldn’t gobblefunk around with words”.

Jacqueline Wilson waded into the conversation on Monday, saying that making changes to children’s books was sometimes justified and that she would not write one of her past novels today because of its controversial content. Below, we look at what other authors have said on the topic.

Margaret Atwood: ‘If you don’t like it, read something else’

Speaking to the BBC’s Newsnight in March, the Canadian author commented on the Dahl controversy: “Good luck with Roald Dahl. You’re just really going to have to replace the whole book if you want things to be nice.

“But this started a long time ago; it was the ‘Disneyfication’ of fairytales. What do I think of it? I’m with Chaucer, who said: ‘If you don’t like this tale, turn over the page and read something else.’”

Irvine Welsh: ‘I found it a positive experience’

The Trainspotting author said he had worked with a sensitivity reader for the first time when writing his 2022 novel The Long Knives, which deals with transgender issues. He wrote on Twitter: “I was initially very hostile, regarding this as censorship. However, my experience with the trans reader was highly positive.

“The reader was highly supportive of what I was trying to do: balanced, thoughtful and informative, and the book is infinitely better as a result. I found it a positive experience. Certainly, there was none of the crackpot vitriol you see on all sides of the debate on here.”

Charlie Higson: ‘Times and sensitivities change’

Higson, an author of young adult fiction including the first five Young Bond novels, said sensitivity reading is “nothing new”.

In March, he told the Guardian: “I don’t think it was a sensitivity reader who insisted on the change to the original title of Agatha Christie’s And Then There Were None.” The original title included a racial slur.

“Times change and sensitivities change, and thankfully, we now accept that some things in older books can be very upsetting to some modern readers and a more diverse readership,” he said.

Salman Rushdie: ‘This is absurd censorship’

Commenting on the Dahl debate in February, Rushdie described the editing of his books as “absurd censorship”. On Twitter, he wrote that Puffin and the late author’s estate “should be ashamed”.

Despite his defence of Dahl’s works, Rushdie said he was “no angel” and that he was “a self-confessed antisemite, with pronounced racist leanings.”

Philip Pullman: ‘Let him go out of print’

Pullman told BBC Radio 4’s Today programme in February: “If it does offend us, let him go out of print.

“What are you going to do about them? All these words are still there; are you going to round up all the books and cross them out with a big black pen?

“Read Phil Earle, SF Said, Frances Hardinge, Michael Morpurgo, Malorie Blackman. Read Mini Grey, Helen Cooper, Jacqueline Wilson, Beverley Naidoo.

“Read all these wonderful authors who are writing today who don’t get as much of a look-in because of the massive commercial gravity of people like Roald Dahl.”