Tag: consumer affairs

Inkonceivably expensive – printer ink pricier than 32-year-old Scotch Whisky

Despite being more expensive than 32-year-old Scotch whisky, Chanel No 5 and high-end champagne, most people buy branded ink for their printer rather than cheaper third-party alternatives even though they are just as good, according to new Which? research.

The consumer champion found that just one set of replacement cartridges for the Epson Expression Premium XP-900 costs £96. This means that a customer replacing their ink five times can expect to pay £480, yet a third-party alternative deemed of similar quality was found to cost a mere £70 for five replacement sets – a saving of up to £410.

At £2.04 a millilitre, the Epson printer ink was one of several branded versions found to be more expensive than 32-year-old Scotch whisky (£1.71), Chanel No 5. (£1.13) and premium champagne (30p).

Despite the extortionate cost of original ink cartridges, the majority of people told Which? that they regularly buy branded cartridges (58%) over cheaper third-party alternatives – and some have never tried non-branded at all (41%). 

The survey of almost 9,000 printer owners revealed that many people are concerned that third-party ink may be incompatible with their printer (43%), print quality would be compromised (30%) or that the third-party ink might damage their printer (30%).

However, in reality, the survey revealed that only one in 10 (11%) of those who use third-party ink regularly experienced cartridges not working, just four per cent experienced leakage and only three per cent found print quality lower than expected.

Many third-party brands also offer guarantees if the cartridge doesn’t work, while some will even repair or replace the printer for free. 

What’s more, those surveyed thought some third-party brands were easier to use than original cartridges from HP and Epson ink. And the same goes for toner: Which? found that people with laser printers were much happier with third-party brands than original branded toner.

However, incompatibly isn’t a completely unfounded worry. Some  HP printers are designed to prevent customers from using third-party ink by employing something it calls ‘Dynamic Security’, which recognises third-party cartridges and stops them working.

Although HP says this protects its customers, the thousands of people who took part in Which?’s survey found that third-party cartridges offer much better value and even, a better customer experience.

Which? has heard from many consumers who are unhappy that they can no longer use their favourite brands, with some even buying a new printer to avoid the ongoing high cost of replacement HP cartridges. 

Which? believes that this is completely wrong and choosing to use third-party cartridges should be down to an individual’s choice, not HP’s.

In the US, a lawsuit resulted in some customers being reimbursed by HP for the costs of replacement cartridges, printers and repairs following a class action settlement.

Under the out-of-court settlement, HP agreed that Dynamic Security wouldn’t be reactivated in the affected inkjet printers. HP denies that it did anything wrong. 

This hasn’t yet happened for UK consumers, so customers will need to carefully consider how much they could end up paying over the lifespan of their printer as it could be more than they bargained for.

Harry Rose, Which? Magazine Editor, said: “Printer ink shouldn’t cost the earth and we’ve found that there are lots of unbranded products that are just as good as their branded counterparts and only a fraction of the cost – so you can keep your hard-earned cash for actual luxuries rather than spending it on printing.

“Choosing third-party cartridges should be a personal choice and not dictated by the make of your printer. If you are in the market for a new printer, it might be best to avoid HP if you don’t want to fork out for expensive HP ink cartridges.”

eBay’s review system can dupe consumers, says Which?

Ebay’s product review system has flaws that are allowing unscrupulous sellers to mislead shoppers and boost sub-standard, counterfeit and even dangerous products, Which? research has revealed.

The consumer champion found sellers are easily able to exploit gaps in the system to unfairly share positive reviews for potentially legitimate products from brands like Apple and Samsung.

By using the same product ID they can attach the glowing reviews to listings for inferior, or completely different, goods – making it difficult for shoppers to tell which items are the real thing.

Which? experts looked at hundreds of listings for several categories of products on eBay, including chargers, charging cables, headphones, smoke alarms and travel adaptors.

They found products that shared the same reviews despite clearly looking different from each other in images posted by the seller. In other cases some customers had posted warnings about the quality of the items amid the suspicious positive reviews.

There were hundreds of listings for counterfeit Samsung chargers that had been subject to a Europe-wide recall alert – but customers would be unaware because the sellers had been able to adopt four and five star reviews, shared across multiple listings, to falsely lend credibility to their listing.

To establish whether these products matched up to the positive reviews, Which? ordered 20 supposedly “official” Apple and Samsung accessories, including chargers and USB cables. Despite these multiple products being listed by different sellers, they all shared the same reviews.

For the 20 products ordered, eBay showed that more than 33,300 had been sold. Yet all fell short of what a buyer would have expected based on the listing, while some were out-and-out fakes.

During the investigation, Which? identified several underlying problems suggesting the eBay product review system is flawed.

Sellers appeared to be exploiting the eBay Product ID (ePID) – a code that can be chosen by any seller listing the same item. It is designed to make it easier for sellers to list products, by pulling relevant information from a central database.

But the system means reviews from all listings claiming to be the same item can be shared, regardless of the seller or the condition of the product.

When researchers looked further into eBay’s product review guidance, they also found concerning gaps such as sellers being able to leave reviews for their own products – a practice banned by other online marketplaces including Amazon.

When Which? shared its findings with eBay, the company said it would investigate the listings and remove any that breached its policies. While some of the products have now been removed, as of Wednesday 11 March the recalled counterfeit Samsung charger listings were still live.

Which? believes the findings demonstrate fundamental flaws with eBay’s review system – leading to a lack of transparency and a risk of consumers being duped by fake and misleading reviews. It is also clear that eBay’s enforcement of current policies around product safety, counterfeit goods and action against unscrupulous sellers are proving ineffective.

Ebay must take urgent action to make its review system more robust and transparent, so that consumers can trust the customer feedback on products they are buying.

The company must also demonstrate that it can put in place an effective system to remove misleading listings, unsafe products and counterfeit goods – and take strong action to shut down sellers who try to break the rules.

The CMA estimates £23 billion a year of consumer transactions are influenced by online reviews and it has already intervened on the trading of fake reviews on eBay.

Which? is now calling for the regulator to extend its scrutiny of online platforms to include an investigation of the seriously flawed online review systems that put consumers at risk of being misled.

Natalie Hitchins, Head of Home Products and Services, Which?, said: “Our investigation has uncovered yet another example of online reviews being manipulated to mislead people.

“Ebay’s product review system is confusing for consumers and could even direct them towards counterfeit or dangerous products sold by unscrupulous sellers.

“Online reviews influence billions of pounds of consumer spending each year. The CMA must now investigate how fake and misleading reviews are duping online shoppers, taking the strongest possible action against sites that fail to tackle the problem.”

An eBay spokesperson said: “We have investigated the listings shared by Which? and will remove any that breach our policies.

“However the research does not fully consider that there are distinctions between product reviews (which provide buyers with a holistic review of the same product), and seller feedback (which can be used to see specific reviews of a seller’s performance and may reflect the item’s condition).

“In addition, all listings have a ‘report’ feature. Any user can use this to report a concern with a listing, its seller, or its reviews.

“eBay enforces its Product Safety Policy at a global level using block filter algorithms that prevent unsafe products being listed, and our international security teams also work around the clock to help safeguard our marketplace.

“We take enforcement action against any seller found to be in breach of our policies, which can be in the form of a warning, suspension or ban.

“eBay runs several anti-counterfeit initiatives including the Verified Rights Owner Program (VeRO) and is continually introducing new proactive measures to combat the global trade in counterfeits. We are investigating Which’s claims on these items.

“Further information on seller feedback can be found here on eBay UK’s Help Hub.”