Big Blot for Inkjet Resellers

WASHINGTON, Aug. 23, 2002 -- On-line sellers of generic and remanufactured inkjet printer cartridge refills have agreed to pay a $40,000 civil penalty to settle Federal Trade Commission charges that they engaged in deceptive practices.

• Planned Obsolesence Comes to Ink Cartridges • Class Action Challenges HP's Inkjet Replacement Warnings • H-P Wins Inkjet Suit • Big Blot for Inkjet Resellers • Suit: HP Gouges Inkjet Users --- Consumer Complaints • 123inkjets.com • Dell • HP

The FTC alleges that E-Babylon, Inc. and its two principals, Michael Zaya and Aidin Yousif, deceptively represented on their Web sites that their inkjet printer replacement cartridges were new, brand-name items, rather than remanufactured or generic items.

The Commission also alleges that the defendants violated the Mail or Telephone Order Merchandise Rule (Mail Order Rule) by failing to advise consumers of their right to cancel and receive a refund if the defendants were unable to ship the products on time.

According to the FTC's complaint, E-Babylon, based in Simi Valley, California, and its principals operate over a dozen Web sites - including "ProInkjets.com" and "123inkjets.com." Through these sites, the defendants sell remanufactured and generic replacement cartridges for inkjet printers.

"Remanufactured" refers to a used, brand-name cartridge that is refilled with third-party ink. Because this process is not feasible for all cartridges, the defendants also market new, generic cartridges for use in some printers. According to the FTC, the defendants marketed their remanufactured and generic cartridges as brand-name products, then compared their prices for these products with the brand-name products available at office superstores.

The complaint alleges that the defendants misrepresented that their products were new, brand-name inkjet cartridges. In addition, the complaint alleges, the defendants advertised that dissatisfied consumers could receive "no questions asked" refunds, yet many consumers experienced significant difficulties in obtaining refunds. Further, because the defendants had no procedures in place to comply with the FTC's Mail Order Rule, they did not advise thousands of consumers who purchased their products of their right to cancel and receive a refund when the defendants determined they would not be able to ship on time.

The proposed consent decree to settle the charges requires the defendants to pay a $40,000 civil penalty. The proposed decree also requires the defendants to provide redress to consumers who were entitled to, but did not receive, a refund pursuant to either the defendants' money-back guarantee or the Mail Order Rule.

In addition, the proposed decree would prohibit the defendants from: claiming that any product is a new, brand-name product, unless the representation is true; misrepresenting any refund offer; and violating the Mail Order Rule. Finally, the decree would require the defendants to respond promptly to future refund requests.

Back to the top |