The International Imaging Technology Council (Int’l ITC) is a nonprofit trade group representing North American toner and inkjet cartridge remanufacturers, component suppliers, and collectors.
HP has issued firmware updates called Dynamic Security that disable third-party ink and toner functionality in its printers.
The Int’l ITC claims HP’s practice violates the EPEAT 2.0 registry criteria, which prohibit firmware updates that brick third-party cartridges.
The EPEAT 2.0 registry was launched by the General Electronics Council (GEC) in December 2025.
EPEAT 2.0 criteria require manufacturers to either refrain from disabling remanufactured cartridges or provide approved solutions for their use.
The GEC’s criteria apply to imaging equipment, computers, displays, phones, servers, and TVs.
The Int’l ITC may have a bias as its members benefit financially from aftermarket cartridge support.
Customers and security experts have previously criticized HP’s Dynamic Security updates.
The EPEAT 2.0 registry aims to promote sustainability, circularity, and responsible supply chains.

The strongest version of this narrative highlights a legitimate tension between corporate control and sustainability. HP’s Dynamic Security updates, while framed as a security measure, effectively lock consumers into proprietary ink systems, undermining both competition and environmental goals. The EPEAT 2.0 criteria explicitly reject such practices, positioning this as a clash between corporate interests and regulatory sustainability standards. The Int’l ITC’s critique gains credibility because it aligns with broader consumer and expert concerns, even if its members stand to profit from aftermarket cartridge sales.
However, the narrative could be vulnerable to a **Motte-and-Bailey** pattern (ARC-0043), where the Int’l ITC’s argument shifts between a principled stance on sustainability and a self-interested defense of its members’ profits. Additionally, the framing of HP’s actions as purely anti-competitive might overlook legitimate security or quality-control justifications, though the article does not explore these counterarguments in depth.
Root cause: This dispute reflects a broader paradigm of planned obsolescence and corporate control over product ecosystems. The assumption that manufacturers should dictate post-sale product functionality is being challenged by sustainability advocates and regulators. Historically, this echoes battles over "right to repair" and digital rights management (DRM), where corporations prioritize revenue streams over user autonomy.
Implications: If HP’s practices persist, consumers face higher costs and reduced choice, while the environment bears the burden of increased e-waste. Conversely, if EPEAT 2.0 enforcement succeeds, it could set a precedent for other industries, empowering aftermarket solutions and circular economies. The second-order consequence may be a shift in how tech companies balance profitability with sustainability mandates.
Bridge questions: What evidence would convince you that HP’s Dynamic Security is primarily about security rather than market control? How might EPEAT 2.0’s criteria be enforced, and what resistance might manufacturers mount? What other industries could face similar sustainability vs. corporate control conflicts?
Counterstrike scan: A coordinated influence campaign would amplify the Int’l ITC’s claims while omitting HP’s potential justifications, framing the issue as a David-vs-Goliath battle to provoke outrage. The actual content does not fully match this pattern, as it acknowledges the Int’l ITC’s bias and includes EPEAT’s neutral criteria. No structural alignment with manipulation is detected.
Patterns detected: ARC-0043 Motte-and-Bailey (potential, not confirmed)