HP has (quietly) settled a class action lawsuit over claims it deliberately blocked customers from using third-party toner cartridges in its printers, without paying a penny in damages.

Locking Out Third-Party Toner

The lawsuit centred on HP’s controversial Dynamic Security feature, i.e. software designed to detect and reject toner cartridges not produced by HP itself. The system, enabled through automatic firmware updates, left some users unable to print at all if they’d chosen cheaper, third-party alternatives.

The lead plaintiffs included Mobile Emergency Housing Corp (MEHC), a US-based organisation providing emergency shelter services, and Performance Automotive, a car parts business. Both reported that HP printers they had purchased in good faith suddenly stopped accepting non-HP toner after a firmware update was remotely triggered. For example:

– MEHC said it had bought an HP Color LaserJet Pro M254 in 2019 and opted for third-party toner in 2020 to cut costs. The following month, a firmware update rendered the cartridges useless.

– Performance Automotive said it had a similar experience with its HP Color LaserJet Pro MFP M281fdw after installing an update that blocked non-HP supplies.

A Profitable Strategy?

It seems that HP hasn’t denied the existence of Dynamic Security. In fact, it appears to have defended the system openly. For example, speaking back at the 2024 World Economic Forum in Davos, CEO Enrique Lores highlighted how HP’s business model depends on profits from consumables, not hardware, saying: “We lose money on the hardware, we make money on the supplies,” and that, “we’re investing in that customer every time a printer is sold.”

The fact that in FY2024, HP’s printing division generated $4.5 billion in net revenue, much of it from proprietary ink and toner sales, appears to support this idea.

Lores has also argued that Dynamic Security helps protect customers from potential security threats, claiming third-party cartridges could, in theory, carry malicious firmware. However, such risks remain hypothetical and there’s little evidence of this happening in real-world scenarios.

Settlement Without Liability

Rather than fight the lawsuit in court, HP has now agreed to settle without admitting wrongdoing. Under the terms, the company will continue to disclose that its printers may block third-party cartridges and has pledged to allow customers the choice to install or decline firmware updates containing Dynamic Security.

“HP denies that it did anything wrong,” the official settlement notice states, “but agrees to maintain certain disclosures and options regarding firmware updates.”

While it appears that no compensation will be paid, the agreement marks another chapter in HP’s ongoing efforts to defend its closed ecosystem, even as it comes under increasing scrutiny from customers and regulators alike.

The Growing Backlash Against Lock-In

Unfortunately for HP, this issue isn’t likely to go away. Many customers see the lockout as an unfair restriction, especially when third-party cartridges can cost a fraction of the price. On forums and social media, frustrated users have voiced concerns about being forced into costly purchases with little warning or transparency.

For businesses that rely on predictable print costs, these kinds of restrictions can have real operational impacts. For example:

– Disruption risk. Sudden firmware changes can halt printing workflows, causing downtime for organisations.

– Cost inflation. HP-branded toner is often significantly more expensive, impacting budgets for schools, small businesses, and non-profits.

– Reduced trust. Customers may question whether HP prioritises their interests, or simply its bottom line.

HP’s Not The Only One

It’s worth noting here, however, that HP’s not alone in exploring this kind of supply-chain lock-in. Other printer makers, including Canon and Epson, have also been accused of using software to prevent third-party cartridges from functioning.

However, HP has become one of the most visible examples, perhaps because it’s also one of the most vocal. With lawsuits, user complaints, and increasing regulatory scrutiny in both the US and EU, it seems that efforts to tightly control consumables may be backfiring.

A 2023 report by the European Commission warned that such tactics could breach consumer rights, and several EU countries are now pushing for regulations guaranteeing “the right to repair” and “freedom of choice” for printer supplies.

HP, meanwhile, remains firm on its stance, offering its own cartridge recycling programmes and claiming that its proprietary ecosystem is ultimately more sustainable and secure.

That said, for many customers, particularly in sectors where budgets are tight, that argument is proving increasingly hard to justify.

What Does This Mean For Your Business?

HP’s settlement may avoid an outright legal defeat but is likely to leave lingering concerns for businesses that rely on its printers. The company’s willingness to restrict functionality through remote updates (especially without warning) appears to raise serious questions about control, transparency, and long-term value.

While HP has pledged to give users the choice over future firmware updates, the incident highlights the risks of buying into ecosystems that can be altered unilaterally. For small businesses, charities, schools, and other organisations with tight margins, the ability to use affordable third-party toner isn’t just a preference but is a necessity.

It’s also a warning sign for procurement teams, i.e. printer selection should no longer be just about hardware specs or upfront cost. It’s about understanding how restrictive the vendor’s software policies are, and what support (or surprises) may lie ahead.

If anything, this case shows how vendors are doubling down on closed-loop business models. Companies may want to reassess whether HP’s approach aligns with their operational and financial priorities, or if a more open, flexible printing solution would be the smarter investment.

As printer manufacturers continue to balance profit protection with customer satisfaction, the pressure is on to prove that these digital lock-ins serve users as well as shareholders.

Cybercriminals are exploiting users’ trust in familiar verification tools like CAPTCHAs to trick them into infecting their own systems, according to HP Wolf Security’s latest Threat Insights Report.

The report highlights a rise in social engineering campaigns built around a fake CAPTCHA page where users are lured into completing bogus verification steps, exploiting what HP terms “click tolerance”, a habit of blindly following prompts due to frequent exposure to login and security checks.

Victims are directed to attacker-controlled websites where clicking “I’m not a robot” secretly copies a malicious PowerShell command to their clipboard. They are then instructed to open the Windows Run prompt, paste the code, and execute it, thereby unknowingly launching a malware infection themselves.

The primary payload, Lumma Stealer, is a powerful information-stealing tool capable of grabbing credentials and crypto wallets. The malware is hidden in a disguised ZIP archive and deployed using DLL sideloading to avoid detection.

HP reports that these campaigns often use reputable cloud services to host the malicious content, helping them bypass web filters and email gateways. Victims are typically drawn in via search engine hijacking, ads, or compromised websites.

To stay protected, businesses should disable clipboard sharing and restrict access to the Windows Run command where possible. Regular training can also help staff recognise and resist deceptive prompts.

Chinese automaker BYD says its new megawatt charging platform could eliminate range anxiety and double Tesla’s speed, but how does it work, and what could this mean for UK drivers?

Charges As Quickly As Filling A Petrol Tank

According to Chinese electric vehicle giant BYD, EV charging is about to get a serious upgrade. BYD has just revealed a new fast-charging system that it claims can deliver up to 400km of range in just five minutes, thereby potentially making it as quick to charge an EV as it is to fill a petrol tank. If the technology holds up in real-world use, it could mark a turning point not just for BYD, but for the entire electric vehicle industry.

Twice The Power Of Tesla Superchargers

With charging power reaching a staggering 1,000 kW, twice that of Tesla’s best superchargers, the announcement is already (understandably) rattling the market. For example, shares in BYD jumped 4.1 per cent in response, while Tesla’s stock fell for the second day running. However, the real story lies in the technology behind the hype, and the wider implications for sustainability, infrastructure, and competition in the UK and beyond.

How Does It Actually Work?

Can BYD really charge an EV in five minutes? Technically, yes it seems, although it may not be quite as simple as plugging in and hitting the road.

The key lies in the Han L sedan’s 83.2 kWh lithium iron phosphate (LFP) battery, paired with a cutting-edge 945-volt electrical system. This high-voltage architecture reduces heat and boosts efficiency, allowing for rapid energy transfer without overheating. For example:

– The LFP chemistry is more thermally stable than the nickel-based alternatives used by many rivals, making it safer and more tolerant of aggressive charging rates.

– BYD’s “Blade Battery 2.0” technology, made by its subsidiary FinDreams, uses a dense, compact structure that enables faster heat dissipation.

– The “dual-gun” system means two 500 kW charging connectors can be used simultaneously, delivering a combined 1,000 kW charging speed, or 1 megawatt.

– This setup allows the car to charge from 16 per cent to 80 per cent in just 10 minutes, and from 16 per cent to 100 per cent in 24 minutes, even in sub-zero temperatures.

Caveat

It should be noted, however, that there’s a caveat. The range claim of 400km in five minutes is based on China’s CLTC cycle, which tends to overstate real-world figures by around 35 per cent. Realistically, UK drivers might see closer to 160 miles from a five-minute top-up. Nonetheless, it’s a massive leap from current norms.

How Does It Rate Against Tesla?

Tesla’s most powerful chargers currently deliver 250-500 kW, depending on the model and version. The latest V4 superchargers, while not widely deployed yet, promise faster speeds, but still fall short of BYD’s new benchmark. For example:

– Tesla’s 500 kW charging adds around 170 miles in 15 minutes.

– BYD’s system adds the same in just 5 minutes.

Charging Station Difference

The key difference is that Tesla’s infrastructure is more mature, with over 65,000 superchargers globally. BYD, meanwhile, has only just announced plans to install 4,000 “flash-charging stations” in China. Rollout elsewhere, including the UK, remains unclear.

However, with BYD now outselling Tesla in battery electric vehicles globally, i.e. 1.77 million units vs. Tesla’s 1.77 million (with a few hundred fewer sales), the race is tightening.

Why This Matters for Sustainability

Beyond the tech buzz, the implications for sustainability are significant. For example, one of the biggest barriers to widespread EV adoption remains “charging anxiety”, i.e. the fear of long wait times and limited charging infrastructure. BYD says its platform directly addresses that concern, because:

– Faster charging means shorter stops and less congestion at public chargers, reducing the energy used in queueing, idling, or rerouting to find available stations.

– LFP batteries, like those used in BYD’s vehicles, avoid the use of cobalt and nickel, which are more resource-intensive to mine and process.

– The ability to handle rapid charging without degradation means batteries could last longer, reducing waste and improving lifecycle emissions.

If BYD can scale this tech internationally, it could accelerate the decarbonisation of road transport – especially in countries like the UK, where EV adoption has so far been hampered by patchy charging infrastructure.

What About The UK Market?

While BYD’s fast-charging system is initially launching in China, its growing presence in the UK could mean British buyers benefit sooner than expected.

Last month, BYD overtook Tesla in UK EV sales for the first time, with year-on-year growth of 500 per cent. Tesla’s UK sales, by contrast, fell by 8 per cent, amid growing unease over Elon Musk’s political involvement in Trump’s US government and the broader downturn in EV sentiment.

If BYD brings the Han L sedan or Tang L SUV (both of which are compatible with the new charging system) to the UK, they could seriously undercut premium rivals. With starting prices around £28,700 in China, even after import costs, these models would compete strongly against higher-priced Teslas and European EVs.

Also, US President Donald Trump’s push for increased tariffs on Chinese imports could unintentionally benefit BYD in European markets. While 100 per cent tariffs currently apply to Chinese EVs entering the US, the UK (like the EU) has so far taken a more moderate stance.

In fact, the EU has launched an anti-subsidy investigation into Chinese EVs, but has stopped short of immediate punitive tariffs. For example, the European Commission says: “The aim is to ensure a level playing field… not to shut out competition, but to ensure that competition is fair.”

For BYD, this opens a window of opportunity to expand its footprint across Europe, especially as Tesla’s share price has slumped, and its product development slowed.

Can the Grid Handle It?

For BYD, there’s one potential spanner in the works, i.e. the charging infrastructure itself. Delivering 1,000 kW of power requires serious hardware and some serious grid capacity. Each charging station would need reinforced grid connections, advanced cooling systems, and high-spec transformers. It’s unlikely to be rolled out in older service stations without significant upgrades. For example, the heat output of megawatt-class EV chargers needs continuous thermal management and some substantial safety measures.

Therefore, for BYD’s system to reach the UK en masse, infrastructure investment will be key. It may also require new standards and regulations, given that most UK fast-charging points currently max out at 150-350 kW.

That said, with the technology now proven, and global EV sales continuing to rise, faster charging is no longer really a fantasy but is the next frontier.

What Does This Mean For Your Organisation?

If BYD can deliver on its promise of five-minute charging at scale, the ripple effects for UK businesses, infrastructure providers, and consumers could be significant. For example, for fleet operators, taxi firms, delivery services and public transport providers, faster charging could translate into less downtime, lower running costs, and improved operational efficiency. It would also allow more flexible scheduling of EV use, making electric fleets a far more attractive option for businesses previously hesitant to commit.

For UK charging infrastructure firms and energy providers, on the one hand, rolling out megawatt-capable charging points will require costly upgrades and forward planning. However, on the other, it opens the door to a new generation of ultra-rapid charging hubs, reshaping service stations and rest stops into high-efficiency EV energy depots. It seems that those who move early may well gain a long-term competitive edge.

For manufacturers and retailers, BYD’s technology ups the ante. Carmakers relying on slower or more conventional charging models may now face mounting pressure to catch up or risk being left behind. At the same time, retailers in the UK who already stock BYD vehicles, or plan to do so, could find themselves with a compelling new selling point that aligns with growing consumer demand for convenience, performance and sustainability.

From a consumer point of view, the shift to faster, safer, and more sustainable battery technology addresses several long-standing concerns in one go. If BYD’s LFP-powered Han L or Tang L models can combine competitive pricing with real-world reliability, the barriers to EV adoption, particularly for those without home chargers, may start to erode far more quickly.

It should be noted, however, that it’s still early days. BYD’s ultra-fast chargers are currently limited to China, and widespread rollout in Europe will depend on regulatory approval, grid capacity, and investment appetite.

This short video is really fascinating and could well be a game-changer when it comes to content production and personalised learning. Learn how to use AI to create an authentic-sounding yet completely AI generated podcast on any topic you care to mention!

[Note – To Watch This Video without glitches/interruptions, It may be best to download it first]

Want ChatGPT to think like you, sound like you, or specialise in your business niche? With Custom GPTs, you can build your own AI assistant in minutes (no coding needed). Here’s how:

Why this works:

Custom GPTs let you tailor ChatGPT to your specific needs. Whether it’s drafting copy in your brand tone, answering customer queries using your documentation, or even acting as a private tutor, your GPT follows your rules.

How to:

– Log in at chatgpt.com with a ChatGPT Plus account.

– In the top left, click the dropdown menu next to “ChatGPT”.

– Select ‘Explore GPTs’.

– In the top right, click ‘Create’.

– ChatGPT will guide you through a few simple questions to help define your assistant.

– Add files, set the tone, name it, and even upload a custom profile image.

– When you’re done, your GPT will appear in your dropdown list alongside GPT-3.5 and GPT-4.

Pro-Tip: You can keep your GPT private, share it with your team, or publish it publicly. Want it to pull answers from your own company documents? Upload those during setup and it’ll use them during chat.

Privacy advocates are calling for Apple’s legal challenge against a secret UK government order to be heard in public, arguing that millions of users’ privacy rights are at stake.

Could Set Precedent

The case, currently set to be conducted behind closed doors, could set a major precedent for the future of encryption and government surveillance.

Why Apple is Fighting the UK Government

At the heart of the issue is Apple’s Advanced Data Protection (ADP) feature, which the company recently withdrew from the UK market after refusing to comply with a government order to provide access (back doors) to encrypted user data. The feature, launched in 2022, offered end-to-end encryption (E2EE) for iCloud backups, photos, and notes, ensuring that only users could access their stored data. Even Apple itself could not decrypt this information, a security measure the company insists is critical to protecting user privacy.

However, the UK government issued a Technical Capability Notice (TCN) under the Investigatory Powers Act 2016 (IPA), compelling Apple to create a mechanism (the ‘back door’ idea) that would allow law enforcement agencies to access encrypted user data when required. Apple refused and instead removed the feature entirely for UK users. While the company has not publicly detailed the exact reasoning, it is widely understood that Apple believes complying with the order would create a security back door, compromising user privacy not just in the UK but globally.

Legal Challenge

Consequently, Apple has now launched a legal challenge against the order, arguing that it is unlawful. But the proceedings are set to take place behind closed doors, prompting major privacy rights groups to intervene and call for transparency.

Why Rights Groups Are Demanding a Public Hearing

Three major privacy advocacy organisations, Open Rights Group, Big Brother Watch, and Index on Censorship, have now written a joint letter to the Investigatory Powers Tribunal (IPT), urging it to open the hearing to public scrutiny rather than conducting it behind closed doors. Their main argument is that millions of users in the UK, as well as international Apple customers, are affected by the case, and they have a right to know how their data security might be compromised.

For example, the letter, addressed to Lord Justice Singh, President of the IPT, states:

“This case implicates the privacy rights of millions of British citizens who use Apple’s technology, as well as Apple’s international users. There is significant public interest in knowing when and on what basis the UK government believes that it can compel a private company to undermine the privacy and security of its customers.”

The rights groups argue that the Investigatory Powers Tribunal has a duty to hold hearings in public unless there is a compelling reason not to, such as a direct threat to national security. In this case, they say, there is no justification for secrecy, as the existence of the TCN has already been widely reported, and Apple has already reacted by withdrawing its encryption service in the UK.

The Legal Battle Over Encryption

The case has sparked fresh debate about encryption and its role in privacy versus law enforcement. Apple has consistently maintained that any back door created for law enforcement could be exploited by hackers and authoritarian regimes, ultimately making data less secure for everyone.

This argument is actually supported by many cybersecurity experts, who warn that once encryption is weakened for one purpose, it cannot be limited to just government use. Criminals, rogue states, and malicious actors could also exploit the vulnerability.

The UK government, however, insists that access to encrypted data is necessary in cases involving national security threats, terrorism, and child abuse investigations. Under the Investigatory Powers Act, companies can be compelled to provide access to data when law enforcement agencies make a valid request. The government claims that Apple’s refusal to comply could hinder criminal investigations.

Could Other Governments Follow the UK’s Lead?

One of the most concerning aspects of the UK’s demand is its potential global impact. For example, if Apple is forced to create a back door for UK law enforcement, this would set a precedent for other countries to demand similar access. This could include authoritarian regimes that might use such powers to suppress political dissidents, journalists, or activists.

Privacy advocates, therefore, argue that weakening encryption in one country may fundamentally undermine encryption everywhere. Once a vulnerability exists, it can be exploited by malicious actors globally. This is why Apple, and other tech companies, have resisted such demands in the past.

For example, in 2016, Apple famously refused to help the FBI unlock an iPhone used by a terrorist in the San Bernardino attack, arguing that doing so would compromise the security of all iPhone users. The FBI eventually paid a third party to crack the device, but the case set an important precedent for tech companies standing firm against government pressure.

Pressure from the US and Other Stakeholders

The UK is not the only place where the case has raised alarms. A group of US politicians, including Senators Ron Wyden and Alex Padilla, has also called on the IPT to hold the hearing in public. In a separate letter, they warned that the UK’s actions could have major security implications for users globally and could lead to a wider erosion of privacy rights.

The BBC has also weighed in, arguing that it should be allowed to report on the hearing given its widespread implications. As media and privacy groups continue to demand openness, the IPT will now have to decide whether to stick with a closed-door approach or allow public scrutiny.

What Does This Mean For Your Business?

The outcome of this case could have significant implications not only for Apple but for the wider technology industry and UK businesses that rely on secure communications. If the Investigatory Powers Tribunal rules in favour of the UK government, it may force tech firms to reconsider their encryption policies, making it more difficult to guarantee data privacy. This could erode trust in cloud storage and digital services, potentially impacting businesses that rely on these technologies to store sensitive corporate information securely.

On the other hand, if Apple prevails, it would send a strong message in defence of encryption, reinforcing the argument that companies should not be required to create vulnerabilities in their own security measures. Such a ruling could also influence similar debates worldwide, particularly as other governments look at introducing legislation that could force tech firms to weaken encryption.

For UK businesses, this legal battle highlights the growing tension between regulatory compliance and cybersecurity. Many companies depend on strong encryption to safeguard intellectual property, financial transactions, and customer data. If the UK government’s position on encryption tightens, firms may need to rethink how they handle data protection and cybersecurity risks.

More broadly, this case highlights deeper concerns about the balance between privacy and national security. For example, governments argue that access to encrypted data is essential for law enforcement, but privacy advocates warn that weakening encryption could expose users to greater risks. The push for transparency in Apple’s legal battle reflects a wider demand for accountability in government surveillance and policymaking.

As the tribunal prepares to make its decision, attention will remain fixed on the potential ramifications for digital privacy. Whether the hearing remains private or is opened to public scrutiny, the ruling will set an important precedent, shaping how governments and tech companies navigate encryption debates in the future. For now, UK users of Apple’s iCloud storage remain without Advanced Data Protection, and the outcome of this case will determine whether they ever get it back.