Despite being granted several motions to dismiss a number of complaints, a class action suit against the OEM will continue.
Brother has been unable to overturn a class action suit alleging 
the company misrepresents how often its colour toner cartridges need replacing, despite successfully having a number of complaints dismissed.
US District Judge Freda L. Wolfson granted the OEM’s motion to dismiss the plaintiff Robert Diciuo’s “breach of express and implied warranty, breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and injunctive relief claims”.
Wolfson denies plaintiff Diciuo’s claims that “the failure to state […] the need to replace three cartridges when only one has been exhausted represents an omission of materials fact”, and other complaints including the disparity between the statement of how many pages a user may receive in a printer user manual, stating that it “does not guarantee […] but, rather, provides an estimate of how many pages the user can expect to receive”.
Despite having these complaints successfully overturned, Brother will still face a class action suit, including the plaintiff’s assertions that additional expense has consistently been incurred due to purchasing Brother cartridges with a secret fixed life, “while perhaps for the same price at the same rated yield, the cartridges of some other manufacturers do not interfere with the use of all of the toner and do not arbitrarily limit use”.
Wolfson continues: “I conclude that plaintiffs have sufficiently pled out-of-pocked losses […] by asserting that they expended funds to purchase additional colour toner cartridges to replace the nono-exhausted cartridges”.
Scheduling for the class action suit has since commenced.