Case 9:21-cv-82107-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/19/2021 Page 1 of 60

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

Case No.:

DANIELLE GREENBERG, individually

and on behalf of all others similarly
situated,

Plaintiff,
v.
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
HP INC.

Defendant.
__________________________________/

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

Plaintiff Danielle Greenberg, individually and on behalf of all others similarly

situated, by her attorneys, files this Class Action Complaint (“Complaint”) against

Defendant HP Inc. (“HP”). The following allegations are based on personal knowledge as

to Plaintiff’s own conduct and on the investigation conducted by her counsel.

INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY OF ACTION

1. Plaintiff brings this consumer class action alleging that HP misled

consumers about the quality and functionality of the Envy Laptops (“Envy”), Envy 360

Laptops (“Envy 360”), Pavilion Laptops (“Pavilion”), Pavilion 360 Laptops (“Pavilion

360”) and the HP 14, HP 15, and HP 17 Laptops (“HP Laptop”). Together, these

computers, sold in or after 2017, make up the “Class Laptops”.

2. HP designed, manufactured, marketed, sold, and distributed the Class

Laptops to tens of thousands of consumers in Florida and throughout the United States.

1
Case 9:21-cv-82107-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/19/2021 Page 2 of 60

3. The Class Laptops all possess a material defect that prevents them from

being used as portrayed in HP’s advertising materials, and HP concealed, failed to

disclose, or otherwise engaged in deceptive marketing with respect to this defect. As a

result, many consumers purchased computers that became practically unusable after just

months of use.

4. Unbeknownst to consumers, the Class Laptops are designed and

manufactured with a common inherent defect that, over time, compromises the laptops’

hinges, thus impairing the computer’s portability and functionality. The Class Laptops’

display hinges are defective in that they break off from the poorly secured mounting

points at the base of the device (the “Defect”).

5. One of the essential attributes of a laptop or portable computer is the ability

to open and close the case like a clam shell for ease of transport. This ability is contingent

on the hinge being anchored to the two halves of the laptop. A laptop’s universal design

consists of a thin upper case, containing the monitor, and a thicker, more robust bottom

case that contains the keyboard, hard drive, CPU, and other critical components. The

hinge provides a connection between the two halves and allows the monitor to be opened

and closed as needed.

6. Upon information and belief, the Defect is the result of ordinary stress on a

vital component that is common in the Class Laptops. Because the hinges are anchored to

the laptops with poorly designed parts constructed from weak plastic, the ordinary

opening or closing of the laptop fractures the plastic anchors, causing them to fail, and

destabilizes the hinges. This destabilizing of the hinges causes the case to become

2
Case 9:21-cv-82107-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/19/2021 Page 3 of 60

compromised resulting in further damage to the lower case and inoperability of the hinge

as designed. The Defect is captured in the below photograph of a Class Laptop hinge

mechanism.

Fractured Plastic Anchors in Class Laptop (HP 17)

Fractured Plastic Anchors in 17" HP Envy1

1
17" HP Envy Coming apart at the left near screen hinge - Page 3 - HP Support Community –
4651990https://h30434.www3.hp.com/t5/Notebook-Hardware-and-Upgrade-Questions/17-quot-HP-Envy-Coming-
apart-at-the-left-near-screen-hinge/td-p/4651990/page/3

3
Case 9:21-cv-82107-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/19/2021 Page 4 of 60

Defect in an HP Envy 3602

7. Despite their knowledge of the Defect, Defendant markets its Envy 360 and

Pavilion 360 computers as “convertible” and designed to offer a range of angles and

movements to users:

“Create on-the-go with a convertible laptop designed to move with you. The
power of a 360 degree hinge combined with the simultaneous use of touch and pen
make for vibrant, accurate creations…The 360 degree hinge adapts so you can
capture every intricate sketch with precision.”3 (Envy x360)

***

“The HP Pavilion x360…convertible adapts to you so that you are productive at

any angle…with four modes to choose from, you’ll find just the right angle for

2
HP Envy x360 Broken Hinge - HP Support Community – 6793400, https://h30434.www3.hp.com/t5/Notebook-
Hardware-and-Upgrade-Questions/HP-Envy-x360-Broken-Hinge/td-p/6793400
3
See HP Envy x360 Product Listing, https://www.hp.com/us-en/shop/pdp/hp-envy-x360-laptop-15t-ed100-174r7av-
1?cq_src=google_ads&cq_cmp=12690817676&cq_con=123460399194&cq_term=&cq_med=&cq_plac=&cq_net=
g&cq_pos=&cq_plt=gp&DSA&jumpid=ps_con_nb_ns&utm_medium=ps&utm_source=ga&utm_campaign=HP-
Store_US_BRA_PS_CPS_OPEX_Google_All_SEM_All_Notebooks-
DSA&utm_term=&matchtype=b&adid=512564949515&addisttype=g&gclid=Cj0KCQjwqKuKBhCxARIsACf4Xu
Epqark2dOenF2HqBQPwnykTceQK1TgHgPcz62FECDLt7bBJRgkvDsaAibJEALw_wcB&gclsrc=aw.ds

4
Case 9:21-cv-82107-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/19/2021 Page 5 of 60

anything with the extremely flexible HP Pavilion x360.”4

8. Defendant marketed its HP Laptops as “reliable” and “designed for long-

lasting performance”, with “compact, portable design”5.

9. Defendant further provides assurances to customers as to the HP Laptops’

durability and HP’s pre-sale diligence by stating that “extensive quality testing ensures

that you can keep going...and going.”6

10. Indeed, Defendant claims that each model has been subject to 115,000

hours of testing,7 which included opening and closing the laptops tens of thousands of

times.8

11. Defendant uniformly represented to consumers that it had years of

experience manufacturing of computers and was in effect an expert in manufacturing,

design, and use of computers.

12. Plaintiff and Class members saw or heard these representations from

Defendant about the Class Laptops prior to purchasing their Envy, Envy x360, Pavilion

x360, Pavilion, or HP Laptops.

13. Plaintiff purchased an HP Laptop manufactured by Defendant on October

27, 2020, for $599.99. Within months of her purchase, Plaintiff noticed a problem that

she came to learn has plagued other purchasers of the Class Laptops. Namely, during

4
See HP Pavilion x360 Convertible Product Listing, https://www.hp.com/us-en/shop/pdp/hp-pavilion-x360-
convertible-15t-er000-touch-24d80av-1?jumpid=ma_weekly-deals_product-tile_laptops_3_24d80av-1_hp-pavilion-
x360-con
5
See Work, Watch and Play All Day, June 4, 2018, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KdB4v9ssdIY
6
HP Laptop - 17-ca2097nr (2Y438UA#ABA)
7
HP Total Test Process Testing - HP Inc Video Gallery - Products (brightcovegallery.com)
8
HP Total Test Process Testing - HP Inc Video Gallery - Products (brightcovegallery.com); Inside HP Labs of
Destruction! (archive.org)

5
Case 9:21-cv-82107-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/19/2021 Page 6 of 60

ordinary use of the machine, the hinges separate from the device, snap, or otherwise fail.

This ultimately prevents the laptop from closing or opening. The destabilized hinges also

render the devices too fragile for transport. Moreover, the damage to the hinge results in

the screen, and its contents, sitting in a tilted position.

14. Plaintiff researched the HP Laptop online before she bought it, including

reviewing HP’s representations about the device on HP’s website and third-party reviews.

Plaintiff purchased the HP Laptop because she was induced to believe its features would

fit her needs.

15. Contrary to HP’s representations, HP fails to disclose that the Class

Laptops are designed and manufactured with a common inherent defect that, over time,

compromises the laptop’s hinges, impairing the computer’s portability and functionality.

16. According to Plaintiff and other owners of the Class Laptops who have

experienced the Defect, the common hinge problem is not a result of dropping or

otherwise handling the laptop roughly. Rather, owners report that the Defect becomes

suddenly apparent by way of a popping or crunching noise when opening or closing the

laptop in the course of normal and intended use.

17. As a result, the user’s ability to (1) open the laptop to utilize the device, (2)

close or transport the laptop, or (3) transition the configuration of the laptop, is

dramatically reduced or lost altogether. Thus, the Defect renders the computer partially

or wholly unusable.

6
Case 9:21-cv-82107-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/19/2021 Page 7 of 60

18. Consequently, the Class Laptops are not fit for their intended purpose as

functioning, compact, portable, or flexible computers and cannot satisfy the

representations HP made in its marketing materials and warranties.

19. There are thousands of customer posts on Defendant’s own online forum

complaining of the hinge issue described above in the Class Laptops. These posts date

back to at least 2014.

20. The complaints describe the Defect, the accompanying crunching sounds

when the devices are opened, and even report plastic debris from the weak hinge anchors

being expelled from the Class Laptops.

21. HP has responded to the Defect in several ways, all of which are

inadequate. In communications with some owners of the Class Laptops, HP has stated

that a hardware assembly issue was causing the hinge cracking and panel separation

problems.9 Despite acknowledging the Defect in this fashion, Defendant has been unable

or unwilling to address the true scope and pervasive nature of the Defect in the Class

Laptops.

22. HP’s laptop computers are covered by a limited warranty (the “Limited

Warranty”), which warrants that HP products are free of defects in material and

workmanship and that HP will repair the product, or if it is unable to repair the product,

replace or refund the purchase.

9
https://h30434.www3.hp.com/t5/Notebook-Hardware-and-Upgrade-Questions/HP-Laptop-Hinge-completely-
broken-and-laptop-will-not-close/m-p/8101580 (posted on 07/02/2021 at 6:50 AM)

7
Case 9:21-cv-82107-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/19/2021 Page 8 of 60

23. The Defect manifests both inside and outside of the warranty period.

Defendant has been unable to fix the Defect during the warranty period and routinely

refuses to repair the Defect free of charge outside the warranty period.

24. Many consumers complaining to HP about the Defect were told that the

issue was caused by user error and HP refused to provide complementary repair. Many

other purchasers of the Class Options have sent their computers in for repair, only to find

that the same issues crop up after the purported repairs, and/or in the next iteration of HP

laptop owners purchased.

25. Despite being aware of the cause of the Defect, HP and its representatives

have often engaged in, or directed frustrated customers to engage in, ineffective repair

methods.10 Many customers who attempted to exercise their rights under the warranty

were told the hinge problems were the result of a hardware problem and were instructed

to order and install replacement hinges from the HP Part store, which did not fix the

Defect. And when HP accepted a Class Laptop for repair under warranty, it often

replaced the hinges with the same part. None of these purported repairs remedied the

hinge issues, because none addressed the Defect.

26. Defendant marketed, promoted, and sold the Class Laptops as flexible,

compact, and portable laptops featuring sleek design and mobility to support on-the-go,

dynamic, and prolonged use.

10
See, e.g., Response https://h30434.www3.hp.com/t5/Notebook-Hardware-and-Upgrade-Questions/HP-Laptop-
Hinge-completely-broken-and-laptop-will-not-close/m-p/8101580 (posted on 7/2/2021 at 7:32 AM).

8
Case 9:21-cv-82107-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/19/2021 Page 9 of 60

27. Defendant knew that a material factor for consumers who purchased a Class

Laptop was that the device was capable of handling frequent use and transportation and,

in the case of the Envy 360 and Pavilion 360, possessed hinges capable of movement into

various positions and angles.

28. The Defect, however, makes it difficult or impossible to open and close the

Class Laptop, transport the laptop, or move the laptop smoothly into any of its advertised

dynamic positions.

29. HP concealed from and/or failed to disclose to Plaintiff and the Class the

defective nature of the Class Laptops, and failed to remove the Class Laptops from the

marketplace or take adequate action to remedy the Defect. Rather, HP sold and serviced

the Class Laptops even though it knew, or was reckless in not knowing, that the Defect

impacted the functionality of the Class Laptops and would ultimately result in Plaintiff’s

and Class members’ inability to use their Class Laptops for their intended purpose.

30. Defendant’s knowledge of the Defect is evident from the voluminous

complaints lodged on Defendant’s own online forum as well as Defendant’s engagement

with Class Laptop owners complaining of the Defect on the forum.

31. As a result of HP’s unlawful, unfair, fraudulent, misleading, and deceptive

practices, Plaintiff and other consumers have purchased HP’s products under the

mistaken belief that the Class Laptops possessed high quality, functional hinges that were

capable of normal use without damaging the machine.

9
Case 9:21-cv-82107-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/19/2021 Page 10 of 60

32. Had Plaintiff and the Class known the facts regarding the Defect in the

Class Laptops, those facts would have been material to their and any reasonable

consumer’s decisions to purchase the Class Laptops at the price they paid for them.

33. Indeed, had Plaintiff and the Class known about the Defect at the time of

purchase, they would have paid substantially less for their Class Laptops. Alternatively,

they would not have purchased the Class Laptops and avoided the significant out-of-

pocket costs they have or will incur to repair or replace their Class Laptops once the

Defect manifests.

34. As a consequence of HP’s false and misleading statements, its active

concealment of the Defect, and its failure to repair or otherwise address the Defect,

Plaintiff and the Class have suffered injury in fact and actual damages in that the Class

Laptops they purchased are unreliable and/or unusable for their intended purposes. As a

direct and proximate result of the Defect, Plaintiff and the Class have also suffered or will

suffer damages in the form of, inter alia: out-of-pocket expenditures for the replacement

and attempted repairs of the Class Laptops; diminished value of the Class Laptops; time

wasted attempting to repair the Defect; and the failure to receive the benefit of the

bargain in their purchases of the Class Laptops.

35. Accordingly, Plaintiff seeks redress for Defendant’s breaches of warranties

and violations of the Magnusson-Moss Warranty Act, Florida’s Deceptive and Unfair

Trade Practices Act, Florida Statute § 817.41 prohibiting misleading advertising, and the

common law of the state.

10
Case 9:21-cv-82107-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/19/2021 Page 11 of 60

36. In furtherance of the public interest, and in order to remedy HP’s wrongful

conduct, Plaintiff brings this action as a class action, and asserts claims on behalf of

herself and a class of similarly situated persons seeking money damages, equitable relief,

and injunctive relief for Defendant’s conduct described herein.

37. Because of the relatively small size of the typical individual Class

members’ claims, it is unlikely that individual Class members could afford to seek

recovery on their own. This is especially true in light of the size and resources of

Defendant. A class action is, therefore, the only reasonable means by which Class

members can obtain relief.

PARTIES

38. Plaintiff Danielle Greenberg is an individual citizen of the United States

residing in Palm Beach County, Florida and is otherwise sui juris.

39. Defendant HP Inc. is a Delaware corporation with its headquarters located

at 1501 Page Mill Road, Palo Alto, California, 94304. Upon information and belief, HP

Inc. is a global Fortune 500 company and one of the world’s largest manufacturers and

sellers of computers. Defendant HP Inc. utilizes the website www.hp.com/us-

en/home.html and its related webpages, as well as resellers, to market and sell personal

computers and related products directly to consumers throughout the United States,

including to consumers in Florida. HP Inc. is registered to do business in Florida and

other states across the country.

11
Case 9:21-cv-82107-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/19/2021 Page 12 of 60

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

40. This Court has personal jurisdiction over HP because: a substantial portion

of the wrongdoing alleged in this Amended Complaint took place in this state; HP is

authorized to do business here and systematically and continuously conducts business

here; HP has sufficient minimum contacts with this state; and HP otherwise intentionally

avails itself of the markets in this state through the promotion, marketing, and sale of its

products in this state. These facts render the exercise of jurisdiction by this Court

permissible under traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.

41. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over all of Plaintiff’s claims

under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d). This is a class action, the matter in controversy exceeds the

sum of $5,000,000.00, exclusive of interest and costs, and Plaintiff and the Class

members are citizens of states different from Defendant.

42. Venue is proper in this District under 28 U.S.C. § 1391 because a

substantial part of the events and omissions giving rise to the claim occurred in this

District.

STATEMENT OF FACTS

43. HP Inc. designs, develops, manufacturers, and sells personal computers,

tablet computers, monitors, printers, workstations, and accessories.

44. HP Inc. operates in more than seventy countries and sells its products

globally. HP’s headquarters is in Palo Alto, California.

45. As of January 2021, HP Inc. was the world’s second largest personal

computer vendor by unit sales.

12
Case 9:21-cv-82107-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/19/2021 Page 13 of 60

A. The Class Laptops

46. The laptop models which comprise the Class Laptops are aggress a diverse

line of HP’s laptop computer products. However, all the Class Laptops share and suffer

from the same inherent design defect (defined above) as described in detail below.

47. HP launched the Envy family of computers in 2009.11 In 2014, HP unveiled

its 360-degree Convertible PC—so named for its ability to assume multiple form factors

due to a hinged screen. Since that time, HP has released at least 37 new laptop computers

under the Envy and 360-degree Convertible brand names. The latest (2021) basic Envy

models are priced at $1,499.99 and $1,099.99, for the 15” and 17” models, respectively.

The latest (2021) convertible Envy models are only offered as 15” models and start at

$699.99.

48. The latest (2021) basic model of the 15” HP Pavilion is priced at $619.99.

The latest (2021) convertible model of the 15” HP Pavilion starts at $699.99. The latest

(2021) basic 15” and 17’ HP Laptops are priced at $329.99, and $429.99 respectively.

49. Defendant represented, and continues to represent, to consumers that it had

years of experience in the manufacture of computers and was in effect an expert in the

manufacture, design, and use of computers.

50. Defendant’s Limited Warranty “guarantees that it will repair, replace, or

refund, at HP’s option, an HP Hardware Product that manifests a defect in materials or

workmanship during the Limited Warranty Period”.12 If “in the unlikely event that…HP

11
See Timeline of our history, https://www.hp.com/us-en/hp-information/about-hp/history/hp-timeline/timeline.html
12
HP Worldwide Limited Warranty and Technical Support, https://www.hp.com/us-
en/privacy/limited_warranty.html#2

13
Case 9:21-cv-82107-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/19/2021 Page 14 of 60

determines it is unable to repair or replace the HP Hardware Product, HP, at its option,

may elect to provide you with (a) a replacement unit selected by HP that is the same or

functionally equivalent to your HP Hardware Produce in performance or (b) to give you a

refund or credit of your purchase price or lease payments (less interest) instead of a

replacement. To the extent permitted by local law, this is your exclusive remedy for

defective products.”13

51. Defendant designed, manufactured, warranted, advertised, and sold Class

Laptops to tens of thousands of consumers throughout the United States and, upon

information and belief, disseminated marketing materials from its headquarters in

California.

B. The Defect

52. Contrary to HP’s representations, the Class Laptops are designed and

manufactured with an inherent defect that compromises the computers’ ability to open or

close, be transported, or configured into any of its advertised dynamic positions.

Moreover, the damage to the hinge results in the screen, and its contents, sitting in a tilted

position. Upon information and belief, the Defect is the result of ordinary stress on a vital

component that is common in the Class Laptops.

53. While the hinges are connected to the Class Laptops using brass screws, the

screws are held in place by fragile plastic. The fracture toughness of the plastic is too low

for this application and reflects the overall lack of quality in the laptop’s frame.

13
Id.

14
Case 9:21-cv-82107-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/19/2021 Page 15 of 60

54. Because the hinges are anchored to the Class Laptops with poorly designed

parts constructed from weak plastic, the ordinary opening or closing of the laptop results

in friction between the brass and weak plastic. This, in turn, wears and cracks the plastic

anchors — thus destabilizing the hinges. During ordinary use of the machine, the Defect

causes part or all of the hinge anchors to crack, snap, separate, break or otherwise fail.

55. Once the brass become unsecured from the plastic rings, they will not re-

seat. Therefore, in the absence of an adequate fix, the Defect will only worsen as time

progresses.

Image from YouTube Repair Video14

56. Once the Defect manifests, use of the computer is, at best, difficult, and

often impossible because the user cannot transport, open or close, or adjust their laptop.

Since the Defect impairs the user’s ability to view the visual interface to the machine and

14
Laptop Hinge Repair - HP Envy - YouTube; available at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cyaZ-7rUFmQ. Last
visited on November 2, 2021.

15
Case 9:21-cv-82107-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/19/2021 Page 16 of 60

impairs or prevents the portability of the laptop, it renders the device partially or wholly

unusable.

57. According to Plaintiff and other owners of Class Laptops who have

experienced the Defect, the hinge problems are triggered and exacerbated when the

laptop monitor is opened, closed, or adjusted — such as when the user folds the monitor

down towards the keyboard or, in the case of the 360-degree Convertible models, the

monitor is folded into tent or tablet mode.

58. The Defect is often initially identified by crunching sounds when the

devices are opened as well as plastic debris falling from the Class Laptops. Soon

thereafter, the hinge becomes increasingly inoperable.

59. Consequently, the Class Laptops are not fit for their intended purpose and

cannot perform in accordance with HP’s marketing materials and warranties.

60. The Defect has impacted many other purchasers of the Envy, Envy 360,

Pavilion, Pavilion 360, and HP Laptops. For example, on April 18th, 2020, a forum

member created a thread entitled “Broken hinge attachment” and wrote:

I bought the 17-BY1008CA less than a year ago…The way the laptop has
been designed the entire weight of the monitor is resting on two hinges that
are attached to cheap plastic. It is basically designed so that if the laptop is
open the weight slowly pulls the screws out of where they are attached and
pushes up through the housing causing everything to break…My laptop sits
on my desk or on my lap in my home. It is lifted by the bottom using two
hands…I have to use clamps to hold it together as it has already snapped
the housing. I spent $700 on this laptop it should not break by itself.15

15
HP Forum, https://h30434.www3.hp.com/t5/Notebook-Hardware-and-Upgrade-Questions/Broken-hinge-
attachment/m-p/7560795. Last visited on November 2, 2021.

16
Case 9:21-cv-82107-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/19/2021 Page 17 of 60

61. In the same thread, another customer replies: “My issue is similar…Two

days ago (8 months after receiving my laptop back from repairs) the hinge broke a second

time. The first hinge incident occurred just over a year after purchase. I have never

dropped it or handled it roughly. I used it to read an article for school the other evening,

then closed it. The next morning it cracked as I attempted to open it”.16

62. In another thread on the HP Forum created on February 15, 2021, entitled

“Broken hinge,” a customer wrote:

I purchased a $1100 envy360 in 2018. The laptop is not two years old so
it’s a year out of warranty. I was using it last night and the left side hinge
broke from the inside out. I called hp and they said because it’s out of
warranty I would have to pay $500 to have it fixed which would take over a
month. I am a college student I don’t have $500 or a month to get my
laptop fixed…I have…NEVER dropped it. I’m so disappointed that HP
won’t stand behind their products and do the right thing and fix it for free.
The laptop should last longer than two years before it starts to fall apart.17

63. In the same thread, another customer responded, that they were “having the

same problem.”18

64. In another thread posted on January 21, 2021 titled “Broken left hinge and

corner”, a customer wrote about their Pavilion HP Notebook:

“I have an HP laptop that is cracked on the upper left corner. The hinge has
also broken and I have to leave the lid open. I have not dropped the laptop
and it seems that other people have posted this same issue.”19

65. Another customer responded to this post, writing

16
Id.
17
HP Forum, https://h30434.www3.hp.com/t5/Notebook-Hardware-and-Upgrade-Questions/Broken-hinge/m-
p/7977304.
18
Id.
19
HP Forum, https://h30434.www3.hp.com/t5/Notebook-Video-Display-and-Touch/Broken-left-hinge-and-
corner/m-p/7945435.

17
Case 9:21-cv-82107-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/19/2021 Page 18 of 60

“I have the exact same issue but the response HP gives is that it is out of
warranty and they will repair for $300!! That is unacceptable!! This is
clearly a design/manufacturing flaw HP is aware of and won’t stand by
their product? This is a terrible way to handle your business and
customers.”20

66. On the HP Forum there are thousands of distinct complaints detailing the

issues caused by the Defect. Below are a few such examples of such threads pertaining to

the Class Laptops, each one created by a different consumer and containing a multitude

of testimonials regarding the issues created by the Defect:

72. 17-Bs019cy (2PB35UA) Broken hinge (created November 29, 2020).21

73. HP 17” Laptop – By0053cl HP Laptop Hinge completely broken and laptop

will not close – Unacceptable! (created July 1, 2021).22

74. HP 17-By1003na Full-HD Laptop Product 7GR46EA#ABU HINGE ON

RIGHT SIDE OF LAPTOP BROKEN (created September 30, 2020).23

75. HP Laptop 17-By001st Horrible HP Experience – HP wants me to pay

$190 to fix their faulty product (created August 22, 2020).24

76. Pavilion Laptop 15 Broken hinge (created August 3, 2020).25

20
Id.
21
See https://h30434.www3.hp.com/t5/Notebook-Hardware-and-Upgrade-Questions/Broken-hinge/m-p/7874642
22
See https://h30434.www3.hp.com/t5/Notebook-Hardware-and-Upgrade-Questions/HP-Laptop-Hinge-completely-
broken-and-laptop-will-not-close/m-p/8101580
23
See https://h30434.www3.hp.com/t5/Notebook-Hardware-and-Upgrade-Questions/HINGE-ON-RIGHT-SIDE-
OF-LAPTOP-BROKEN/m-p/7799660
24
See https://h30434.www3.hp.com/t5/Notebook-Hardware-and-Upgrade-Questions/Horrible-HP-Experience-HP-
wants-me-to-pay-190-to-fix-their/m-p/7743128
25
See https://h30434.www3.hp.com/t5/Notebook-Hardware-and-Upgrade-Questions/Broken-hinge/m-p/7670952

18
Case 9:21-cv-82107-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/19/2021 Page 19 of 60

77. HP 15-D035dx Notebook PC HP Notebook broken hinge – is it fixable?

(created March 1, 2019).26 The user provided the below images of the Defect.

26
See https://h30434.www3.hp.com/t5/Notebook-Hardware-and-Upgrade-Questions/HP-Notebook-broken-hinge-is-
it-fixable/m-p/7036976

19
Case 9:21-cv-82107-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/19/2021 Page 20 of 60

78. HP Notebook – 17-By1062st Broken hinge on my laptop (created March

12, 2021).27

79. HP Gaming Pavilion – 15-Cx0140tx HP Gaming Pavilion – 15-cx0140tx =

Hinges broken with Pieces coming out broken! (created June 30, 2021).28

80. Pavilion 15-Cs0053cl Left hinge broken (created July 9, 2020).29

81. HP ENVY X360 Left Hinge on HP ENVY x360 Broken (created July 12,

2021).30

82. HP Notebook Broken left rear hinge (created June 4, 2021).31

83. Notebook 15-Bs121nr broken hinge (created December 18, 2019).32

27
See https://h30434.www3.hp.com/t5/Notebook-Hardware-and-Upgrade-Questions/Broken-hinge-on-my-
laptop/m-p/8006416
28
See https://h30434.www3.hp.com/t5/Notebook-Hardware-and-Upgrade-Questions/HP-Gaming-Pavilion-15-
cx0140tx-Hinges-broken-with-Pieces/m-p/8100345
29
See https://h30434.www3.hp.com/t5/Notebook-Hardware-and-Upgrade-Questions/Left-hinge-broken/m-
p/7680094
30
See https://h30434.www3.hp.com/t5/Notebook-Hardware-and-Upgrade-Questions/Left-Hinge-on-HP-ENVY-
x360-Broken/m-p/8110870
31
See https://h30434.www3.hp.com/t5/Notebook-Hardware-and-Upgrade-Questions/Broken-left-rear-hinge/m-
p/8080837
32
See https://h30434.www3.hp.com/t5/Notebook-Hardware-and-Upgrade-Questions/broken-hinge-l/m-p/7345099

20
Case 9:21-cv-82107-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/19/2021 Page 21 of 60

84. HP Notebook – 15-Bs113dx Broken hinges (created January 15, 2021).33

85. HP Laptop 17z Broken hinges (created December 6, 2020).34

86. Pavilion 15-Cs3019nl HP Pavilion – 15-cs3019nl – Screen Hinges Broken

– Display Bezel Broken (created January 27, 2021).35

87. Pavilion Gaming Laptop 15-Cx0xxx HP Pavilion Gaming Laptop 15 hinge

broken just a year and a half after purchase (created April 25, 2020).36

88. HP Notebook – 17-Bs001no Hp left hinge broken (created April 10,

2019).37

89. Pavilion Gaming Laptop 15-Cx0020nr Broken hinge mount on Pavilion

gaming laptop (created May 20, 2020).38

90. Hp-Bs023ca Hinge broken (created April 14, 2021).39

91. Broken left hinge on my HP 17-bs0xx (created July 7, 2021).40

92. HP Envy x360 Screen Popped Out/Broken Hinge (created April 4, 2020). 41

The post provided the below images of the Defect.

33
See https://h30434.www3.hp.com/t5/Notebook-Hardware-and-Upgrade-Questions/Broken-hinges/m-p/7937049
34
See https://h30434.www3.hp.com/t5/Notebook-Hardware-and-Upgrade-Questions/Broken-hinges/m-p/7883787
35
See https://h30434.www3.hp.com/t5/Notebook-Hardware-and-Upgrade-Questions/HP-Pavilion-15-cs3019nl-
Screen-Hinges-Broken-Display-Bezel/m-p/7952645
36
See https://h30434.www3.hp.com/t5/Notebook-Hardware-and-Upgrade-Questions/HP-Pavilion-Gaming-Laptop-
15-hinge-broken-just-a-year-and-a/m-p/7574227
37
See https://h30434.www3.hp.com/t5/Notebook-Hardware-and-Upgrade-Questions/Hp-left-hinge-broken/m-
p/7085264
38
See https://h30434.www3.hp.com/t5/Notebook-Video-Display-and-Touch/Broken-hinge-mount-on-Pavilion-
gaming-laptop/m-p/7615274
39
See https://h30434.www3.hp.com/t5/Notebook-Hardware-and-Upgrade-Questions/Hinge-broken/m-p/8037757
40
See https://h30434.www3.hp.com/t5/Notebook-Hardware-and-Upgrade-Questions/broken-left-hinge-on-my-HP-
17-bs0xx/m-p/8106517
41
HP Envy x360 Screen Popped Out/Broken Hinge - HP Support Community - 7536339

21
Case 9:21-cv-82107-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/19/2021 Page 22 of 60

22
Case 9:21-cv-82107-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/19/2021 Page 23 of 60

23
Case 9:21-cv-82107-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/19/2021 Page 24 of 60

67. Purchasers of the Class Laptops have also posted similar accounts on many

other internet forums.42 For example, the below reddit post concerning an Envy 360

illustrates the damage caused by the Defect.43

42
See, e.g., r/AMDLaptops, HP Envy x360 Laptop right hinges so fragile-it BROKE in 3 months., January, 2021
https://www.reddit.com/r/AMDLaptops/comments/kx3tw7/hp_envy_x360_laptop_right_hinges_so_fragileit/
43
HP Envy x360 Hinge Issue. Closed my laptop the other day and a screw popped out and now the hinge is broken.
I can see that the other 3 screws are in place on the bracket, but have also become unglued from the case. How
should I fix this? Was quoted $200 from HP. HP Envy x360 Hinge Issue. Closed my laptop the other day and a
screw popped out and now the hinge is broken. I can see that the other 3 screws are in place on the bracket, but have
also become unglued from the case. How should I fix this? Was quoted $200 from HP.,
https://www.reddit.com/r/Hewlett_Packard/comments/b4o6g9/hp_envy_x360_hinge_issue_closed_my_laptop_the/

24
Case 9:21-cv-82107-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/19/2021 Page 25 of 60

68. The Defect manifests both inside and outside of the warranty period. As

illustrated above, Defendant is often unable to fix the Defect during the warranty period

and routinely refuses to repair the Defect free of charge outside of the warranty period.

C. HP’s Exclusive and Early Knowledge of the Defect

69. HP forum activity makes clear that Defendant has been on notice of the

Defect in the Class Laptops since at least 2014 through complaints made to the HP

Forum.

70. The forum page “17” HP Envy Coming apart at the left near screen hinge”

(first posted October 27, 2014)44, and the nearly 200 customer posts on it, demonstrates

that the Defect was both pervasive and reported to Defendant back in 2014:

44
17" HP Envy Coming apart at the left near screen hinge - HP Support Community - 4651990

25
Case 9:21-cv-82107-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/19/2021 Page 26 of 60

26
Case 9:21-cv-82107-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/19/2021 Page 27 of 60

72. Customer complaints continued on other HP forum pages, as demonstrated

in the below images from a forum entitled “Hinges” (first posted February 16, 2016):45

45
Solved: Hinges - HP Support Community - 5502838, https://h30434.www3.hp.com/t5/Notebook-Hardware-and-
Upgrade-Questions/Hinges/td-p/5502838

27
Case 9:21-cv-82107-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/19/2021 Page 28 of 60

28
Case 9:21-cv-82107-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/19/2021 Page 29 of 60

73. Defendant’s failure to improve its design and manufacturing is evident in the

below continued complaints on the HP forum page “Replacement Hinges Question” (first posted

January 24, 2018)46:

46
Solved: Replacement Hinges Question - HP Support Community - 6531071,
https://h30434.www3.hp.com/t5/Notebook-Video-Display-and-Touch/Replacement-Hinges-Question/m-p/6531071

29
Case 9:21-cv-82107-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/19/2021 Page 30 of 60

74. As the years progressed, the number of complaints on HP forum sites

climbed drastically, as discussed in the excerpts below from “HP Envy Hinge Issues -
Has HP acknowledged this is a known issue yet? (5+ years and counting)” (first posted
July 16, 2018)47:

47
HP Envy Hinge Issues - Has HP acknowledged this is a known i... - HP Support Community - 6759803,
https://h30434.www3.hp.com/t5/Notebook-Hardware-and-Upgrade-Questions/HP-Envy-Hinge-Issues-Has-HP-
acknowledged-this-is-a-known/td-p/6759803

30
Case 9:21-cv-82107-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/19/2021 Page 31 of 60

31
Case 9:21-cv-82107-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/19/2021 Page 32 of 60

32
Case 9:21-cv-82107-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/19/2021 Page 33 of 60

75. HP claims that “When the products are serviced, it’s a goldmine of

information for us. We harvest that information to help us understand how to test it better

and what’s driving reliability.”48

76. Despite Defendant’s awareness of the Defect and the wealth of information

provided by disgruntled customers, HP has failed to reveal, repair, prevent or adequately

respond to the Defect.

48
HP Total Test Process Testing - HP Inc Video Gallery - Products (brightcovegallery.com),
http://hp.brightcovegallery.com/products/detail/video/4567149706001/hp-total-test-process-
testing?autoStart=true&page=0&q=Military

33
Case 9:21-cv-82107-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/19/2021 Page 34 of 60

77. Defendant knew that functionality, mobility, maneuverability and

portability were, and continue to be, material factors for consumers purchasing a Class

Laptop.

78. HP concealed from and/or failed to disclose to the public at large—

including the Plaintiff and the Class—the defective nature of the Class Laptops and failed

to remove the Class Laptops from the marketplace or take adequate action to remedy the

Defect. Rather, HP sold and serviced the Class Laptops even though it knew, or was

reckless in not knowing, that the Defect impacted the portability, mobility, and

functionality of the Class Laptops and would ultimately result in Plaintiff’s and Class

members’ inability to use their Class Laptops for their intended purpose.

79. Moreover, Defendant’s omissions are accompanied by affirmative

misrepresentations as to the Class Laptops’ durability and portability. Defendant

marketed, promoted, and sold the Class Laptops as “precision-crafted, high-performance

notebooks”. 49

80. The 360-degree Convertible PC was marketed as a 2-in-1 laptop with a

touchscreen monitor that could be folded flat against the underside of the base of the

machine.

81. Specifically, HP stated that the 360-degree models offered “an affordable

touch convertible PC that transforms the computing experience with a 360-degree

hinge.”50

49
HP Timeline | HP® Official Site, available at https://www.hp.com/us-en/hp-information/about-hp/history/hp-
timeline/timeline.html
50
See Timeline of our history, https://www.hp.com/us-en/hp-information/about-hp/history/hp-timeline/timeline.html

34
Case 9:21-cv-82107-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/19/2021 Page 35 of 60

82. Defendant described its HP Laptops as “reliable” and “designed for long-

lasting performance”, with “compact, portable design”.51

83. Defendant repeatedly emphasized the mobility of the Class Laptops with

the following representations: “easy to take anywhere”52; “built to keep you productive

and entertained from anywhere”53; “[a] compact laptop that makes it easy to get work

done on the go with a Precision Touchpad, while the long battery life and HP Fast Charge

let you keep moving”;54 “[t]he Pavilion 15 Laptop packs more performance into a smaller

profile, so you can get more done wherever you go…. so you can do more and enjoy

entertainment wherever you go”55; “[c]reate on-the-go, anytime, anywhere and whenever

inspirations strikes.”56

84. Defendant further provides assurances to customers regarding the HP

Laptops’ durability and HP’s pre-sale diligence by stating that “extensive quality testing

ensures that you can keep going...and going.”57

85. Defendant also promoted its quality assurance and the durability of its

products by inviting technology reporters to its testing facility.58 The tour demonstrated

a variety of testing devices designed to ensure durability and longevity, including: a

51
See Work, Watch and Play All Day, June 4, 2018, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KdB4v9ssdIY
52
HP Laptop 17-ca3097nr (2C5B7UA#ABA), https://www.hp.com/us-en/shop/pdp/hp-laptop-pc-17-ca3000-
%281c0g7av%29
53
HP Laptop -15t-dw300 (1B9N3AV_1), https://www.hp.com/us-en/shop/pdp/hp-laptop-15t-dw300-touch-optional-
1b9n3av-1
54
HP Pavilion Laptop 15-eh1097nr (3F1F9UA#ABA), https://www.hp.com/us-en/shop/pdp/hp-pavilion-laptop-15-
eh1097nr
55
HP Pavilion Laptop 15-eh1097nr (3F1F9UA#ABA), https://www.hp.com/us-en/shop/pdp/hp-pavilion-laptop-15-
eh1097nr
56
HP® ENVY 17 Laptops, https://www.hp.com/us-en/shop/mdp/laptops/envy-17-344517--1#!&tab=features
57
HP Laptop - 17-ca2097nr (2Y438UA#ABA), https://www.hp.com/us-en/shop/pdp/hp-laptop-17-ca2097nr
58
Inside HP Labs of Destruction! (archive.org),
https://web.archive.org/web/20150918232024/https:/www.chipchick.com/2014-07-inside-hp-labs-destruction.php

35
Case 9:21-cv-82107-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/19/2021 Page 36 of 60

pulley system designed to slam laptops into a hard surface; a platform that vibrated

the laptops rapidly; equipment used to send electric shocks into the laptops; and a

freezer for temperature testing.59

86. Most importantly, HP also represented to the attendees that the durability of

the laptop hinges was tested by opening and closing the laptops “typically from minimum

angle to maximum angle” 27,000 times.60

Photograph of Defendant’s Hinge-Testing Operations in 201461

59
Id.
60
Id.
61
Id.

36
Case 9:21-cv-82107-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/19/2021 Page 37 of 60

Photograph of Defendant’s Hinge-Testing Operations in 201162

87. Defendant’s assurances regarding the durability of its products continues to

this day. HP’s website includes a video entitled “HP Total Test Process”.63 This video

describes Defendant’s product testing procedures and presents HP products as having

gone through an “exhaustive set of tests that are designed to replicate the full product life

cycle in a short period of time”.64

88. HP claims that their product testing consists of “115,000 hours of testing on

each model.”65

89. Once again, HP portrays its hinges as tested to survive long-term usage.

“Take a notebook for example. One of the things that everybody has to do is open and

62
HP Durability Tests - YouTube, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bM7yw-y3BB0
63
HP Total Test Process Testing - HP Inc Video Gallery - Products (brightcovegallery.com),
http://hp.brightcovegallery.com/products/detail/video/4567149706001/hp-total-test-process-
testing?autoStart=true&page=0&q=Military
64
Id.
65
Id.

37
Case 9:21-cv-82107-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/19/2021 Page 38 of 60

close it. If you’re expected to open and close that notebook 10,000 times, we’ll test it to

50,000.”66

Image of Screens Being Opened and Closed as Part of Hinge Testing on HP’s Website67

Image of Screens Being Opened and Closed as Part of Hinge Testing on HP’s Website68

66
Id.
67
Id.
68
Id.

38
Case 9:21-cv-82107-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/19/2021 Page 39 of 60

Image of Laptops Being Dropped as Part of Quality Testing on HP’s Website69

90. HP further assures customers that “after all that’s done, we do low-level

evaluations. We take a look at each of the subsystems at a component level to make sure

that there is nothing that could causes issues in the future.”70

91. HP also warrants to consumers that “you can be confident if you buy HP’s

product it’s going to work with what you’ve already got and what you’re going to buy.”71

92. Defendant marketed, promoted, and warranted that the Class Laptops were

premium computers, able to perform the tasks of opening and closing, withstand

transportation, and furthermore able to perform all of the basic functions of similar

laptops of their class.

69
Id.
70
Id.
71
Id.

39
Case 9:21-cv-82107-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/19/2021 Page 40 of 60

93. Plaintiff and Class members purchased their Class Laptops to be used for

mobile computing purposes like those portrayed by Defendant in its marketing materials

for all of the Class Laptops.

94. Because the defective materials are fully enclosed within the Class Laptops

and the Defect is only revealed by laptop use, testing, or disassembly, reasonable

consumers could not discover the Defect prior to purchase.

95. It is likely that many of the Class Laptops will be used or purchased by

unsuspecting members of the putative class, and injunctive relief could prevent harm to

those who remain unaware of the Defect which can render the Class Laptops useless.

Further, potential Class-wide notice may inform Class members of potential remedies

that they may not be aware of.

96. As the Defect likely results from the design of the Class Laptops—i.e., the

use of flimsy plastic material to mount the laptop hinges—replacing the broken hinges

with identical ones is unlikely to fully remedy the Defect.

D. Plaintiff’s Defective HP Laptop

97. Plaintiff purchased an HP 17-by2053cl for her personal use on October 27,

2020, for $599.99, from a Costco Wholesale store located at 1873 West Lantana Rd.,

Lantana, FL 33462. Plaintiff intended to use the laptop for her business and personal

computing needs.

98. Plaintiff’s purchase was covered by the Limited Warranty for a period of

one year.

40
Case 9:21-cv-82107-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/19/2021 Page 41 of 60

99. Within approximately seven months of purchasing the Class Laptop,

Plaintiff upon opening the Class Laptop heard a crunching sound and experienced the

Defect. The issue worsened over time, greatly diminishing her ability to use the machine,

and only several months after the purchase it became impossible for the laptop open

properly without the case further separating, or to close the machine.

100. As instructed by HP in their documentation, Plaintiff went online for

support and was directed to the HP support forums. There Plaintiff saw numerous posts

detailing HP’s refusal to repair and replace the defective Class Laptop, including posts

wherein HP said the problem was due to user error. Another such post stated that HP’s

chosen service provider, Ubreakifix, informed another consumer with a defective Class

Laptop that the cost of the repair was more than a new computer.

101. Plaintiff, though counsel, sent a statutory demand for correction of the

defect on October 13, 2021.

CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS

102. Plaintiff brings this lawsuit on behalf of herself and all similarly situated

individuals and entities, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a), 23(b)(2),

23(b)(3), and/or 23(c)(4). The classes consist of:

a. The Nationwide Class: All purchasers in the United States who purchased a Class

Laptop (the “Nationwide Class”); and

41
Case 9:21-cv-82107-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/19/2021 Page 42 of 60

b. The Florida Subclass: All purchasers in the state of Florida who purchased a Class

Laptop (the “Florida Subclass”, and together with the Nationwide Class, the

“Class”)

103. Plaintiff and Class members reserve the right to amend the Class definitions

as discovery proceeds and to conform to the evidence. Excluded from the Class are: (a)

any Judge presiding over this action and members of their families; (b) Defendant and their

subsidiaries and affiliates; and (c) all persons who properly execute and file a timely

request for exclusion from the Class.

104. Numerosity: Members of the Class are so numerous that their individual

joinder is impracticable. Moreover, the Class is composed of an easily ascertainable, self-

identifying set of individuals and entities who purchased Class Laptops. The precise

number of Class members can be ascertained through discovery, which includes

Defendant’s records. Plaintiff estimates the number of Class members to be in at least the

tens of thousands. The disposition of their claims through a class action will benefit both

the parties and this Court.

105. The proposed classes are ascertainable because they are defined by reference

to objective criteria. In addition, and upon information and belief, the names and addresses

of all members of the proposed class can be identified in business records maintained by

Defendant.

106. Commonality: There are questions of law and fact common to the Class that

will materially advance the litigation, and these common questions predominate over any

42
Case 9:21-cv-82107-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/19/2021 Page 43 of 60

questions affecting only individual Class members. Among the questions common to the

Class are:

a. Whether the Class Laptops suffer from a design defect that causes the hinges to fail;

b. The origins and implementation of, and the justifications for, if any, HP’s policies

and technology relating to the Defect and its manifestation in the Class Laptops;

c. When HP became aware of the Defect in the Class Laptops and how it responded to

that knowledge;

d. Whether HP actively concealed and/or failed to notify consumers of the Defect in

the Class Laptops;

e. Whether Defendant knew of the Defect but failed to disclose the problem and its

consequences to their customers;

f. Whether a reasonable consumer would consider the Defect and its consequences to

be material;

g. Whether Defendant’s conduct violates state consumer protection laws as asserted

herein;

h. Whether Defendant’s conduct violated the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act;

i. Whether Defendant’s sale of Class Laptops containing the Defect is an unfair, false,

misleading, or deceptive act in the conduct of any trade or commerce;

j. Whether Defendant breached the implied warranty of merchantability by selling the

Class Laptops containing the Defect;

k. Whether Plaintiff and the other Class members overpaid for their Class Laptops as

a result of the Defect herein;

43
Case 9:21-cv-82107-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/19/2021 Page 44 of 60

l. Whether Plaintiff and Class members would have purchased their Class Laptops,

and whether they would have paid a lower price for them, had they known that they

contained the Defect at the time of purchase;

m. Whether Plaintiff and the Class are entitled to compensatory damages, including,

among other things: (i) compensation for all out-of-pocket monies expended by

members of the Class for replacement or repair of the Class Laptops; (ii) the failure

of consideration in connection with and/or difference in value arising out of the

variance between the Class Laptops as merchantable in the absence of the Defect,

and as actually manufactured and sold possessing the Defect; and (iii) whether

Plaintiff and the Class are entitled to all costs associated with repair and replacement

of their Class Laptops; and

n. Whether Plaintiff and the other Class members are entitled to equitable relief,

including, but not limited to, restitution or injunctive relief.

107. Typicality: Plaintiff’s claims are typical of the claims of the members of the

Class, as all such claims arise out of Defendant’s conduct in designing, manufacturing,

marketing, advertising, warranting, and selling the Class Laptops. All of Plaintiff’s claims

are typical of the claims of the Class because Plaintiff and all Class members were injured

in the same manner by Defendant’s uniform course of conduct described herein. Plaintiff

and all Class members have the same claims against Defendant relating to the conduct

alleged herein, and the same events giving rise to Plaintiff’s claims for relief are identical

to those giving rise to the claims of all Class members. Plaintiff and all Class members

sustained monetary and economic injuries including, but not limited to, ascertainable losses

44
Case 9:21-cv-82107-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/19/2021 Page 45 of 60

arising out of Defendant’s wrongful conduct as described herein. Plaintiff is advancing the

same claims and legal theories on behalf of himself and all absent Class members.

108. Adequate Representation: Plaintiff will fairly and adequately protect the

interests of the members of the Class and has no interests antagonistic to those of the Class.

Plaintiff has retained counsel experienced in the prosecution of complex class actions

including, but not limited to, consumer class actions involving, inter alia, breach of

warranties, product liability, product design defects, and state consumer fraud statutes.

109. Predominance: This class action is appropriate for certification because

questions of law and fact common to the members of the Class predominate over questions

affecting only individual members.

110. Superiority: A class action is superior to other available methods for the fair

and efficient adjudication of this controversy, since individual joinder of all members of

the Class is impracticable. Given the amount at issue for each Class member, individual

suits would not be economically viable; however, should individual Class members bring

separate actions, this Court would be confronted with a multiplicity of lawsuits burdening

the judicial system while also creating the risk of inconsistent rulings and contradictory

judgments. In contrast to proceeding on a case-by-case basis, in which inconsistent results

will magnify the delay and expense to all parties and the court system, this class action

presents far fewer management difficulties while providing unitary adjudication,

economies of scale and comprehensive supervision by a single court.

45
Case 9:21-cv-82107-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/19/2021 Page 46 of 60

CAUSES OF ACTION

Count I
Violation of the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act (“FDUTPA”)
Fla. Stat. § 501.201, et seq.
(Asserted on behalf of the Florida Subclass)

111. Plaintiff and the Florida Subclass incorporate by reference each preceding

and succeeding paragraph as though fully set forth at length herein.

112. The purpose of the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act

(“FDUTPA”) is “to protect the consuming public and legitimate business enterprises from

those who engage in unfair methods of competition, or unconscionable, deceptive, or unfair

acts or practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce.” Fla. Stat. § 501.202(2).

113. The FDUTPA prohibits “[u]nfair methods of competition, unconscionable

acts or practices, and unfair or deceptive acts or practice in the conduct of any trade or

commerce.” Fla. Stat. § 501.204(1).

114. The actions of HP, as set forth above, occurred in the conduct of trade or

commerce.

115. Defendant misrepresented and/or knowingly and intentionally concealed

material facts concerning the characteristics, uses, and quality of the Class Laptops, and

thereby created confusion among purchasers of the Class Laptops. Accordingly, HP

engaged in unfair and deceptive acts or practices.

116. Contrary to Defendant’s representations, the Class Laptops were not

precisely designed, premium computers, and they could not be used in the manner shown

in Defendant’s marketing material—i.e, a functional, portable, compact design and/or a 2-

46
Case 9:21-cv-82107-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/19/2021 Page 47 of 60

in-1 laptop employing hinges enabling the machine to fold into various positions—without

triggering the Defect and becoming largely or wholly unusable.

117. These misrepresentations and/or omissions led Plaintiff and the Florida

Subclass members to believe that they were purchasing fully functional, portable and

compact and/or premium 2-in-1 laptop computers, when in fact they purchased laptops that

would cease to function properly if used as advertised.

118. Plaintiff and members of the Florida Subclass were deceived by and relied

upon Defendant’s affirmative misrepresentations and failures to disclose, including but not

limited to, the representations about the Class Laptops’ quality, design, and hinge

movement capabilities.

119. HP’s acts and practices deceived Plaintiff and the Florida Subclass. In failing

to disclose the Defect and suppressing material facts to purchasers of the Class Laptops,

HP violated the FDUTPA and caused injuries to Plaintiff and the Florida Subclass.

120. Therefore, Plaintiff and the members of the Florida Subclass are entitled to

recover actual, statutory, and all other damages to the extent permitted by law, as well as

costs and reasonable attorneys’ fees pursuant to Fla. Stat. § 501.2105, and any other just

and appropriate relief.

121. Plaintiff and the members of the Florida Subclass are entitled to injunctive

relief because it is likely that many of the Class Laptops will be used or purchased by

unsuspecting members of the putative class, and injunctive relief could prevent harm to

those who remain unaware of the Defect which can render the Class Laptops useless.

47
Case 9:21-cv-82107-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/19/2021 Page 48 of 60

122. Plaintiff and the members of the Florida Subclass seek restitution of all

monies that HP received as a result of selling the defective Class Laptops to Plaintiff and

the members of the Florida Subclass. As a result of this deception, Plaintiff and the

members of the Florida Subclass expended substantial sums of money and time for the

repair and/or replacement of their Class Laptops. Plaintiff is informed and believes that the

amount of said restitution is unknown at this time but will seek relief to amend this

complaint at the time of trial, when the same has been ascertained.

123. Plaintiff sent Defendant a notice letter prior to the filing of this action.

Plaintiff has yet to receive a response from HP. Defendant was also provided notice of

these issues by numerous informal and formal complaints filed against it, including the

instant Complaint and the various complaints detailed herein, and by numerous

communications sent by Plaintiff and other Class members.

Count II
Violation of Fla. Stat. § 817.41 Prohibiting Misleading Advertising
(Asserted on behalf of the Florida Subclass)

124. Plaintiff and the Florida Subclass incorporate by reference each preceding

and succeeding paragraph as though fully set forth at length herein.

125. Florida’s prohibition on misleading advertising declares unlawful for any

person to do the following:

“[M]ake or disseminate or cause to be made or disseminated before the

general public of the state, or any portion thereof, any misleading
advertisement. Such making or dissemination of misleading advertising
shall constitute and is hereby declared to be fraudulent and unlawful,
designed and intended for obtaining money or property under false
pretenses.” Fla. Stat. § 817.41(1).

48
Case 9:21-cv-82107-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/19/2021 Page 49 of 60

126. The statutory term “misleading advertising” includes statements made or

disseminated to the public in “oral, written, electronic, or printed form or

otherwise…which are known, or through the exercise of reasonable care or investigation

could or might have been ascertained, to be untrue or misleading.” Fla. Stat. § 817.40(5).

Consumers have standing to state a claim under this statute by alleging that they relied on

an identifiable misleading advertisement.72

127. As described herein, HP regularly and pervasively advertised the Class

Laptops as portable with a compact design and/or as 2-in-1 laptops employing hinges

enabling the machine to fold into various positions, while in fact those computers would

cease to function if used as advertised.

128. Plaintiff and members of the Florida Subclass were deceived by and relied

upon Defendant’s affirmative representations and failures to disclose, including but not

limited to, the representations about the Class Laptops’ quality, design, and hinge

movement capabilities.

129. Defendant’s statements regarding the purported quality and functionality of

the Class Laptops were material to prospective purchasers, and were untrue, deceptive,

and misleading.

130. HP has violated Fla. Stat. § 817.41 by engaging in this false advertising

scheme described herein.

72
See, e.g., Third Party Verification, Inc. v. Signaturelink, Inc., 492 F. Supp. 2d 1314, 1322 (M.D. Fla. 2007).

49
Case 9:21-cv-82107-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/19/2021 Page 50 of 60

131. Plaintiff and the Florida Subclass members have been injured and have

suffered economic damages from HP’s false advertising scheme.

132. Pursuant to Fla. Stat. § 817.41(6), Plaintiff and the Florida Subclass

members are entitled to relief for HP’s violations of the statute, including: 1) damages; 2)

punitive damages; 3) costs and reasonable attorneys’ fees; and 4) any other remedies

prescribed by law.

Count III
Breach of Express Warranty
Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act
(Asserted on behalf of the Nationwide Class and alternatively on behalf of the
Florida Subclass)

133. Plaintiff and the Nationwide Class incorporate by reference each preceding

and succeeding paragraph as though fully set forth at length herein.

134. Plaintiff brings this claim on behalf of himself and the Class.

135. The Class Laptops are “consumer products” are defined in 15 U.S.C. §

2301(1).

136. Plaintiff and Class Members are “consumers” as defined in 15 U.S.C. §

2301(3).

137. HP is a “supplier” and “warrantor” as defined in 15 U.S.C. §§ 2301(4) and

(5).

138. HP provided Plaintiff and Class Members with “written warranties” within

the meaning of 15 U.S.C. § 2301(6).

50
Case 9:21-cv-82107-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/19/2021 Page 51 of 60

139. HP has breached its express warranties by refusing to honor the express

warranty to replace or repair, free of charge, any defective component, including the

hardware causing the Defect.

140. At the time Class Laptops were sold, HP knew that they possessed the Defect

and offered an express warranty with no intention of honoring said warranty with respect

to the known Defect.

141. Additionally, pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 2304(d)(1):

[T]he warrantor may not assess the consumer for any costs the warrantor or
his representatives incur in connection with the required remedy of a
warranted product…[I]f any incidental expenses are incurred because the
remedy is not made within a reasonable time or because the warrantor
imposed an unreasonable duty upon the consumer as a condition of
securing remedy, then the consumer shall be entitled to recover reasonable
incidental expenses which are so incurred in any action against the
warrantor.

142. At no time has HP offered a permanent or adequate repair or replacement of

the hardware causing the Defect that would adequately prevent manifestation of the

Defect. Despite repeated demands by Plaintiff and the Class Members that HP pay the

costs and incidental expenses associated with temporarily “fixing” the Defect, HP has

refused to do so. HP’s refusal to provide a permanent repair or replacement for the Defect

and to pay for the temporary “fixes” violates 15 U.S.C. § 2304(d)(1).

143. HP was notified of its breach of warranty and afforded a reasonable

opportunity to cure its breach of the express warranty but failed to do so despite

Plaintiff’s multiple requests.

51
Case 9:21-cv-82107-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/19/2021 Page 52 of 60

144. As a direct and proximate result of HP’s breach of its express written

warranties, Plaintiff and Class Members have been damaged in an amount to be proven at

trial.

Count IV
Breach of Implied Warranty
Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act
(Asserted on behalf of the Nationwide Class and alternatively on behalf of the
Florida Subclass)

145. Plaintiff and the Nationwide Class incorporate by reference each preceding

and succeeding paragraph as though fully set forth at length herein.

146. Plaintiff and Class Members are “consumers” as defined in 15 U.S.C. §

2301(3).

147. Defendant HP is a “supplier” and “warrantor” as defined in 15 U.S.C. §§

2301(4) and (5).

148. The Class Laptops are “consumer products” as defined in 15 U.S.C. §

2301(1).

149. HP extended an implied warranty to Plaintiff and Class Members by

operation of 15 U.S.C. § 2301(7), and this implied warranty covers defects in its Class

Laptops, including the hardware causing the Defect.

150. HP breached this implied warranty by selling/leasing defective Class Laptops

that were neither merchantable nor fit for their intended purpose.

151. As a direct and proximate result of HP’s breach of the implied warranty under

the Magnuson-Moss Act, Plaintiff, and the Class Members, have been damaged in an

amount to be proven at trial.

52
Case 9:21-cv-82107-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/19/2021 Page 53 of 60

Count V
Breach of Implied Warranty
(Asserted on behalf of the Nationwide Class and alternatively on behalf of the
Florida Subclass)

152. Plaintiff and the Nationwide Class incorporate by reference each preceding

and succeeding paragraph as though fully set forth at length herein.

153. A warranty that the Class Laptops were in merchantable condition is implied

by law.

154. These Class Laptops, when sold and at all times thereafter, were not in

merchantable condition and are not fit for the ordinary purpose for which such portable,

compact and/or 2-in-1 laptops are used. Specifically, the Class Laptops are inherently

defective in that there are defects in the Class Laptops’ hinge anchors, which are not of

high quality, and which fail prematurely and/or fail to function properly as detailed herein.

155. Plaintiff sent HP a notice letter prior to the filing of this action. Defendant

was also provided notice of these issues by numerous informal and formal complaints filed

against it, including the instant Complaint and the various complaints detailed herein, and

by numerous communications sent by Plaintiff and other Class members.

156. Any attempt by HP to disclaim or limit its implied warranties is

unconscionable and unenforceable under the circumstances here.

157. Specifically, any attempt by HP to limit or disclaim its warranty limitation is

unenforceable because Defendant knowingly sold a defective product without informing

consumers about the Defect.

53
Case 9:21-cv-82107-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/19/2021 Page 54 of 60

158. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant’s breach of the warranties of

merchantability, Plaintiffs and the other Class members have been damaged in an amount

to be proven at trial.

Count VI
Breach of Express Warranty
(Asserted on behalf of the Nationwide Class and alternatively on behalf of the
Florida Subclass)

159. Plaintiff and the Nationwide Class incorporate by reference each preceding

and succeeding paragraph as though fully set forth at length herein.

160. Defendant expressly warranted that the Class Laptops were of high quality

and, at a minimum, would function properly. Defendant also expressly warranted that it

would repair and/or replace defects in material and/or workmanship free of charge that

occurred during the Limited Warranty.

161. Defendants breached these warranties by selling to Plaintiff and Class

members the Class Laptops with known problems, which are not of high quality, and which

fail prematurely and/or fail to function properly.

162. As a result of the Defendant’s actions, Plaintiff and Class members have

suffered economic damages including but not limited to costly repairs, loss of computer

use, substantial loss in value and resale value of the Class Laptops, and other related

damage.

163. Defendant’s attempt to disclaim or limit its express warranties vis-à-vis

consumers is unconscionable and unenforceable under the circumstances here.

Specifically, Defendant’s warranty limitations are unenforceable because HP knowingly

54
Case 9:21-cv-82107-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/19/2021 Page 55 of 60

sold a defective product without informing consumers about the manufacturing and/or

material defect. Furthermore, Defendant continues to charge Class members for repairing

the defective hinges—if it repairs them at all—when in fact such repairs are actually

necessitated because of Defendant’s defective product.

164. The time limits contained in Defendant’s warranty periods were also

unconscionable and inadequate to protect Plaintiffs and members of the Class.

165. Among other things, Plaintiff and Class members had no meaningful choice

in determining these time limitations, the terms of which unreasonably favored Defendant.

166. A gross disparity in bargaining power existed between HP and Class

members, and HP knew or should have known that the Class Laptops were defective at the

time of sale and would fail well before their useful lives.

167. In addition, HP’s warranty fails of its essential purpose because HP has been

and is unable to effectively repair the Defect.

168. Plaintiffs and Class members have complied with all obligations under the

warranties, or otherwise have been excused from performance of said obligations as a result

of Defendant’s conduct described herein. In addition, Plaintiff sent Defendant a notice

letter prior to the filing of this action.

Count VII
Unjust Enrichment/Restitution
(Asserted on behalf of the Nationwide Class and alternatively on behalf of the
Florida Subclass)

169. Plaintiff and the Nationwide Class incorporate by reference each preceding

and succeeding paragraph as though fully set forth at length herein.

55
Case 9:21-cv-82107-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/19/2021 Page 56 of 60

170. HP has been enriched as a result of the conduct described in this Complaint.

171. HP received a benefit from Plaintiff and other members of the Class in the

form of payment for products purchased on HP’s website.

172. Retention of these benefits by HP would be unjust and inequitable because

HP received these benefits by engaging in a false, deceptive, and misleading scheme to

market the Class Laptops as premium, portable, fully functional machines and/or 2-in-1

laptop computers, and by engaging in the unlawful, unjust, and wrongful acts and practices

described in this Complaint.

173. The benefits, in whole or in part, that HP received were not legitimately

earned and came at the expense of Plaintiff and the other members of the Class.

174. HP knows that the above-described conduct is unjust, inequitable, and

wrongful, but systematically engages in this scheme anyway in order to gain unfair

advantages and reap unearned financial benefits.

175. HP is guilty of malice, oppression, and/or fraud through its willful and

conscious disregard for the rights of Plaintiff and other Class Members.

176. Plaintiff and the Class Members are entitled to restitution and disgorgement

of all amounts unjustly retained by HP, as well as other appropriate relief.

Count VIII.
Fraudulent Omission or Concealment
(Asserted on behalf of the Nationwide Class and alternatively on behalf of the
Florida Subclass)

177. Plaintiff and the Nationwide Class incorporate by reference each preceding

and succeeding paragraph as though fully set forth at length herein.

56
Case 9:21-cv-82107-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/19/2021 Page 57 of 60

178. At all relevant times, HP was engaged in the business of designing,

manufacturing, distributing, and selling the Class Laptops.

179. HP, directly and through its representatives or agents, delivered Class

Laptops to its distributors and various other distribution channels.

180. HP willfully, falsely, and knowingly omitted various material facts

regarding the quality and character of the Class Laptops.

181. Rather than disclose the Defect to Plaintiff and other prospective purchasers

of Class Laptops, HP concealed the Defect.

182. HP omitted and concealed this material information to drive up sales,

maximize profits, and maintain its market power, as consumers would not purchase Class

Laptops, or would pay substantially less for them, had they known the truth.

183. Plaintiff and Class members could not have discovered the Defect prior to it

manifesting in their Class Laptops.

184. HP was in exclusive possession of information concerning the Defect’s

existence, which would have been material to reasonable consumers, and thus was

obligated to disclose the Defect to Plaintiff and Class Members, at the point of sale or

otherwise.

185. Although HP had a duty to disclose the Defect to consumers, it failed to do

so.

186. Plaintiff and Class Members sustained injury at the time they purchased

Class Laptops that suffer from the Defect, which Defendant failed to disclose and

actively concealed from them. Had Plaintiff and the Class known about the Defect at the

57
Case 9:21-cv-82107-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/19/2021 Page 58 of 60

time of purchase, they would have paid substantially less for their Class Laptops, or

would not have purchased them and avoided the significant out-of-pocket costs they have

or will incur to repair or replace Class Laptops once the Defect manifests.

187. HP’s acts were done maliciously, oppressively, deliberately, and with intent

to defraud, and in reckless disregard of Plaintiff and Class Members’ rights and well-

being, and in part to enrich itself at the expense of consumers. HP’s acts were done to

gain commercial advantage over competitors, and to drive consumers away from

consideration or competitor devices. HP’s conduct warrants an assessment of punitive

damages in an amount sufficient to deter such conduct in the future.

JURY DEMAND

Plaintiffs hereby demand a trial by jury on all issues so triable.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for a judgment against Defendant as follows:

A. Entering judgment in favor of Plaintiff against Defendant;

B. Certification of the proposed Class pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil

Procedure 23;

C. Appointment of Plaintiff as Class Representative for the Class;

D. Appointment of Plaintiff’s counsel as Class Counsel;

E. A declaration that HP violated the Florida statutes that form the basis

for Plaintiff’s primary statutory claims;

F. A declaration that HP was unjustly enriched by its conduct as

described herein;

58
Case 9:21-cv-82107-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/19/2021 Page 59 of 60

G. Monetary damages;

H. Statutory damages in the alternative;

I. Restitution;

J. Injunctive relief;

K. Disgorgement of all monies received by HP as a result of the

unlawful, unjust, unfair, and deceptive acts and practices described herein;

L. Penalties as provided by law;

M. Treble damages;

N. A permanent injunction enjoining HP from continuing the unlawful,

unjust, unfair, and deceptive acts and practices described herein;

O. Pre-judgment and post-judgment interest;

P. Reasonable attorneys’ fees and expenses; and

Q. Such other further relief that the Court deems just and equitable.

Dated: November 10, 2021

Respectfully Submitted,

By: Scott D. Hirsch

Scott David Hirsch
SCOTT HIRSCH LAW GROUP PLLC
Fla. Bar No. 50833
6810 N. State Road 7
Coconut Creek, FL 33073
Tel: (561) 569-7062
Email: [email protected]

Nicholas A. Migliaccio (pro hac vice forthcoming)

Jason S. Rathod (pro hac vice forthcoming)
MIGLIACCIO & RATHOD LLP

59
Case 9:21-cv-82107-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/19/2021 Page 60 of 60

412 H Street NE
Washington, DC 20002
Tel: (202) 470-3520
Email: [email protected]
Email: [email protected]

Dan E. Gustafson (pro hac vice forthcoming)

David A. Goodwin (pro hac vice forthcoming)
Frances Mahoney-Mosedale (pro hac vice forthcoming)
GUSTAFSON GLUEK PLLC
Canadian Pacific Plaza
120 South Sixth Street, Suite 2600
Minneapolis, MN 55402
Telephone: (612) 333-8844
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]

Attorneys for Plaintiff

60