Canon ink DRM

During the global semiconductor shortage, Canon shipped toner cartridges for its business multifunction printers without DRM authentication chips and published support pages instructing customers to dismiss the resulting counterfeit warnings.^[1] Canon's own documentation stated there was "no negative impact on print quality" when using cartridges without the electronic components, an admission that consumer advocates and media outlets noted contradicted the industry's longstanding claims that DRM chips were necessary for quality assurance and device protection.^[2][1] The incident affected 19 model lines in Canon's imageRUNNER series of enterprise multifunction printers across Europe, Australia, New Zealand, and other markets.^[3]

Canon, like other major printer manufacturers including HP, Epson, and Lexmark, uses authentication chips embedded in its toner and ink cartridges to verify that a cartridge is a genuine Canon product.^[4] Canon introduced these chips over a decade ago, stating they were designed to stop counterfeit and grey-market cartridges; however, Canon never provided evidence that third-party cartridges caused damage to printers.^[4] When a printer polls a cartridge chip and doesn't receive a valid authentication response, it displays warnings about counterfeit or unrecognized consumables and disables toner level tracking.^[1]

This authentication system also prevents the use of less expensive third-party cartridges.^[5] Canon has aggressively protected this revenue stream through litigation: in February 2018, Canon filed a complaint with the U.S. International Trade Commission against 49 manufacturers and distributors of third-party toner cartridges and photosensitive drum units, and by February 2023 had secured the removal of 30,263 third-party cartridge listings from Amazon in Europe.^[6][7]

From mid-December 2021, Canon began shipping toner cartridges without authentication chips for its imageRUNNER and imageRUNNER ADVANCE series of enterprise multifunction printers.^[8] Canon could manufacture the toner and plastic cartridge housings but could not source the specialized semiconductor chips used for authentication.^[9] The affected consumables were toner products for 19 model lines in the imageRUNNER series; inkjet printer cartridges and standard laser printer toner were not affected.^[2]

The affected models included the imageRUNNER 1435i/1435iF, imageRUNNER 2625i/2630i/2645i, imageRUNNER ADVANCE 4525i through 4551i (including II and III variants), imageRUNNER ADVANCE C-series models from the C250i through C5560i, and several imageRUNNER ADVANCE DX models including the DX 4725i through 4751i and the DX 6000i.^[2]

Without the authentication chip, Canon's own genuine cartridges triggered the same warnings that normally appear when a third-party cartridge is inserted. Toner level displays jumped from 100% to 0% without warning, because the chip that tracks toner levels was absent.^[5] Canon published support pages instructing customers to press "Close," "I Agree," or "OK" depending on their printer model to dismiss the warning and continue printing.^[2]

The issue first gained public attention on January 7, 2022, when a Twitter user flagged Canon's German support page.^[10] Within days, Canon had published support pages across its regional websites in Germany, Europe-wide, Australia, and New Zealand.^[2][11] Canon's Australia and New Zealand operations estimated chipless toner cartridges would be supplied in those countries from February 2022 onward.^[11]

Canon's official statement attributed the issue to "the ongoing global shortage of semiconductor components" and said the company had chosen to "supply consumable products without the semiconductor component until normal supply resumes."^[1] The statement noted the chips' intended function was to detect remaining toner levels and to confirm that the toner was a genuine Canon product.^[10]

Canon explicitly stated that there was "no negative impact on print quality when using consumables without electronic components," but warned that "certain additional functions, such as the detection of the toner level, may be impaired."^[2] The company framed the chipless supply as temporary and indicated it would resume chip-based authentication once semiconductor supply normalized.^[5]

The media response was widely critical. Gizmodo described the incident as an "embarrassing self-own" in which Canon was instructing customers to bypass "the same erroneous error messages consumers have long condemned as being anti-competitive."^[5] Vice noted that "consumers and digital rights activists have been pointing out for ages" that printer DRM served no quality purpose, and that Canon had now "essentially admits that its own DRM is absolutely not necessary."^[1]

Techdirt characterized Canon's DRM bypass instructions as ironic, given that Canon had been sued just months earlier for disabling all functions in its multifunction printers when ink ran out.^[10] Vice observed that Canon could not credibly resume claiming the chips were needed for print quality after publicly documenting that they weren't.^[1]

Canon has stated the chipless supply was temporary and resumed chip-based authentication once semiconductor supply normalized. As of 2026, Canon continues to release firmware updates that can reject third-party cartridges.^[4]

In October 2021, David Leacraft filed a class action lawsuit against Canon USA (Leacraft v. Canon U.S.A., Inc., No. 2:21-cv-05688, E.D.N.Y.) alleging that Canon's PIXMA "all-in-one" printers disabled scanning and faxing when ink cartridges were low or empty, despite those functions not requiring ink.^[12] The complaint named over 20 PIXMA and MAXIFY printer models and alleged violations of New York General Business Law Sections 349-350, breach of express warranty, and unjust enrichment.^[12] The case was resolved through a private settlement and dismissed with prejudice in early 2023.^[13]

A second class action with the same allegations, Bozyk v. Canon U.S.A., Inc. (No. 2:23-cv-06554, E.D.N.Y.), was filed in August 2023 and voluntarily dismissed later that year.^[14]