Anti-SLAPP Motion Filed Against Aster Graphics For Violating The Free Speech Rights of Steven Giannetta

1 Mark L.
Javitch (CA SBN 323729)

Javitch Law Office
2 480 S. Ellsworth Ave.
San Mateo, CA 94401
3
Telephone: 650-781-8000
4 Facsimile: 650-648-0705
mark@javitchlawoffice.com
5 Attorney for Defendant
6 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
7
COUNTY OF ORANGE
8
)
9 ASTER GRAPHICS, INC., a California ) Case Number: 30-2019-01065193-CU-DF-
Corporation, ) CJC
10 )
) Hon. Layne H. Melzer
11 Plaintiff, )
12 ) NOTICE OF ANTI-SLAPP SPECIAL
vs.
) MOTION TO STRIKE COMPLAINT
13 STEVEN GIANNETTA, an individual; )
, ) Hearing Reservation 73062030 Scheduled:
14 ) August 1, 2019 at 2:00 P.M.
Defendant.
) Department C12
15
)
16 )
17
18
NOW COMES DEFENDANT, an individual, Mr. Steven Giannetta, by and through his
19
attorney, who notices and files this special Anti-SLAPP motion to strike the complaint.
20
21
22
By: /s/ Mark L. Javitch .
23
Mark L. Javitch. Javitch (SBN 323729)
STEVEN GIANNETTA
25
26
27
28
Special Anti-Slapp Motion CASE NO.: 30-2019-01065193-CU-DF-CJC

Page 1
1 TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR COUNSEL OF RECORD:
2 PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on August 1, 2019, at 2:00 p.m., or as soon thereafter
3 as the matter may be heard, in the above entitled Court located at the Superior Court of
4 California of the County of Orange, 700 W. Civic Center Dr., Santa Ana, California, 92701, in
5 Department C12, with Reservation Confirmation Number 73062030, Defendant Steven
6 Giannetta (“Defendant”) will and hereby does move the Court pursuant to California’s “anti-
7 SLAPP” statute, California Code of Civil Procedure §425.16, for an order striking all counts of
8 Plaintiff’s Complaint, which purports to assert claims for trade libel, defamation, and false
9 light.
10 Plaintiff’s claims arise from articles posted on TonerNews.com and Defendant’s
11 personal LinkedIn profile page regarding the safety of the products marketed by Plaintiff.
12 Plaintiff’s claims arise solely from Defendant’s exercise of his right of free speech on two
13 matters of public interest – 1) the safety of “new built” or “cloned” toner cartridges imported
14 from China, and 2) how these products are being sold on Amazon.com, the largest internet
15 retailer. Accordingly, these claims fall within the scope of §425.16. The burden, therefore,
16 shifts to Plaintiff to demonstrate, at the outset of the case, “a probability” that it will prevail.
17 Plaintiff cannot carry this burden as a matter of law.
18 For the foregoing reasons, Defendant respectfully request that this Court:
19 (a) grant its Special Motion to Strike all counts of the Complaint,
20 (b) award Defendant its attorney’s fees and costs arising out of the defense, and
21 (c) afford them such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and proper.
22 ////
23 DATED: June 10, 2019 By: /s/ Mark L. Javitch .
24 Mark L. Javitch. Javitch (SBN 323729)

Attorney at Law
25 480 S. Ellsworth Ave
San Mateo CA 94401
26
Tel: 650-781-8000
27 Fax: 650-648-0705

Page 2
1 STEVEN GIANNETTA
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Page 3
1 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
2
I certify that on this 10th day of June, 2019, I mailed and emailed a true and correct copy of the
3
4 foregoing DEFENDANT’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND SPECIAL MOTION TO STRIKE
5 PURSUANT TO CAL. CIV. PROC. CODE § 425.16; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND

6 AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT THEREOF to counsel of record:
7
8
LAW OFFICES OF STEVE QI & ASSOCIATES
9 STEVE QI (SBN 228223)
THOMAS Z. ZHOU (SBN 292334)
10 388 E. Valley Blvd., Suite 200
Alhambra, CA 91801
11
Tel: (626) 282-9878
12 Fax: (626) 282-8968
Attorneys for Plaintiff
13 Aster Graphics, Inc.
Attorney for Plaintiff
14 tomzhou@sqilaw.com
15
16
I mailed this notice and motion using United States Postal Service Priority Mail with tracking
17
number 92055902416755000017968777.
18
19
20
DATED: June 10, 2019 By: /s/ Mark L. Javitch .
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Page 4
1
3 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
4 COUNTY OF ORANGE
5
)
6 ASTER GRAPHICS, INC., a California ) Case Number: 30-2019-01065193-CU-DF-
Corporation, ) CJC
7 )
)
8 Plaintiff, )
) DEFENDANT’S MEMORANDUM OF
) POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN
9 vs.
) SUPPORT OF ITS SPECIAL MOTION
10 ) TO STRIKE PURSUANT TO CAL. CIV.
STEVEN GIANNETTA, an individual; )
, CODE PROC. 425.16
11 )
Defendant. )
12 )
)
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Page 5
1 TABLE OF CONTENTS
2 PAGE(S)
3 I. INTRODUCTION………………………………………………………………………7
4 II. LEGAL STANDARD…...………………………………………………………………9
5 III. LEGAL ARGUMENT…………………………………………………………………10
6 A. The California Anti-SLAPP Law Applies.……………………….……………10
7 B. Defendant has made the Prima Facie Showing………………….......…………11
8 C. Plaintiff cannot show a probability of prevailing…………………….…......…11
9 1. Plaintiff did not identify any actual statements…………………………….12
10 2. The alleged snippets are not disparaging………………………………..…13
11 i. The first quote is not defamatory…………………………………..14
12 ii. The second quote is not pled in context……………………………16
13 iii. The third quote is not disparaging ………………………………..16
14 3. The quotes are not provably false………………………………………….16
15 4. The second quote is not actionable because it is based on disclosed factual
16 evidence……………………………………………………………………16
17 5. The third quote is not actionable because it is based on disclosed factual
18 evidence……………………………………………………………………17
19 D. Plaintiff failed to plead inducement ……………………………………….…..18
20 E. Plaintiff failed to plead special damages………………………………………19
21 F. Plaintiff is a limited public figure ……………………………………………..20
22 G. Plaintiff failed to plead actual malice ………………........................................20
23 H. Plaintiff cannot show a probability of prevailing on its Defamation and False
24 Light Claims………………………………………..……………….………….21
25 IV. CONCLUSION……………………………………………………………………...…22
26
27
28

Page 6
1 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
2
I. INTRODUCTION
3
4 This case is an abuse of the legal system. Aster Graphics is trying to cover up a recent
5 study finding that its products were found to have elevated levels 1 of a chemical known as
6 “DecaBDE” that is used in polymers.
7
Plaintiff Aster Graphics, Inc. (“Plaintiff” or “Aster”) is a California corporation that
8
imports and sells newly-built or “clone” printer cartridges. Aster has sued Defendant, Mr.
9
Steven Giannetta, a California resident for trade libel, defamation, and false light based on
10
11 articles written by Mr. Giannetta on his LinkedIn profile and on TonerNews.com, where he
12 regularly posts about the printer cartridge industry. Mr. Giannetta’s postings fall squarely
13 within the protection of California’s Anti-SLAPP Statutes.

14 Mr. Giannetta is a 26-year veteran in the printer cartridge industry, having worked and
15
consulted for dozens of companies in the industry, and now markets himself as an
16
“Independent Manufacturer’s Rep.” On LinkedIn, he goes by the title “The King of Toner”
17
where he shares articles from other publications, and he also writes some of his own articles at
18
19 TonerNews.com based on independent research. He writes about issues of concern in the
20 “aftermarket” (the business of selling printer cartridges made by third-party manufactures, such
21 as Plaintiff).
22
Some back story will illuminate why the issues Mr. Giannetta writes about are so hotly
23
contested. The aftermarket for toner has been volatile, especially in the last 10-20 years.
24
“Remanufacturing” printer cartridges caught on in popularity as a less expensive alternative to
25
26 1
DecaBDE is considered to be a toxic substance. See Exhibit “A” (“Only 1,000 mg/kg level of
27 this decaBDE is allowed under the EU’s RoHS directive (Restriction on Hazardous Substances)
2011/65/EU); Exhibit B at 5 (“Aster tested positive for elevated decaBDE levels.”) Exhibit C at
28 page 7 (“a cartridge made by Aster tested positive for elevated decaBDE levels.”)

Page 7
1 buying new cartridges from the original equipment manufacturer (or the “OEM”).
2 Remanufacturing is good for the environment because it reuses the cartridge and keeps the
3
used plastic shell out of the landfill. It also creates jobs, and even inspired other new downline
4
industries, such as derivative recycling businesses that would gather and assemble thousands of
5
empty cartridges for resale to remanufacturers.
6
The market evolved, and manufacturers such as Plaintiff found a way to build
7
8 “Compatible” or “New” or “Cloned” cartridges that did not require the extra expense of
9 finding and rebuilding an empty cartridge. The companies that remanufacture cartridges could
10 not “keep up” with the low-priced imports and many enterprises folded. The resulting industry
11
was fractured into the two types of non-OEM cartridges, the lower-priced, new built
12
compatible cartridge, and the more expensive remanufactured cartridge. Compatible cartridges
13
are sometimes priced as low as 80% off the original price, while remanufactured cartridges are
14
15 offered at around 35% off of the retail price.
16 Against this backdrop, the quality and safety of imported cartridges has been vigorously
17 debated. The short version of this dispute is whether Newly Built Compatibles or
18
Remanufactured cartridges will prevail in the marketplace and in printers in America’s offices
19
and homes. Mr. Giannetta advocates that the benefits of buying remanufactured cartridges
20
outweigh those of buying new cartridges. Mr. Giannetta can legitimately do this by pointing
21
out positive aspects of remanufactured and negative aspects of compatibles. Mr. Giannetta’s
22
23 poses the question to the public, isn’t there a “hidden cost” to buying something for $5 that you
24 know is supposed to cost $100-$200? Mr. Giannetta’s postings have brought attention to
25 safety concerns as to the quality of the plastic that is used in the newly built cartridges. Mr.
26
Giannetta’s is entitled to his own factually supported opinions about the safety of imported
27
28

Page 8
1 toners. Plaintiff Aster’s attempt to censor2 Mr. Giannetta and bully him into changing his
2 opinion is a shameful abuse of the legal system. Unfortunately, Plaintiff will not bend to
3
fairness or justice, necessitating this special motion. Therefore, Defendant requests the court
4
strike the complaint and award Defendant’s attorney’s fees as the proper remedy to this
5
injustice.
6
II. LEGAL STANDARD
7
8 California law provides its residents with special protections against claims like
9 Plaintiff’s, which both targets Defendant’s speech on a matter of public interest and is wholly
10 without merit. That policy is reflected in California’s anti-SLAPP law, which affords this
11
state’s residents immunity from meritless lawsuits directed toward speech on matters of public
12
interest. It does so by making such suits subject to “a special motion to strike” that requires a
13
plaintiff to demonstrate, at the outset of a case, “that there is a probability that the plaintiff will
14
15 prevail on the claim.” Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 425.16(b)(1). If the plaintiff cannot meet that
16 burden, then the claim is struck, and the defendants are awarded their “attorney’s fees and
17 costs.” Id. §425.16(c)(1). California’s “anti-SLAPP statute was enacted to allow for early
18
dismissal of meritless first amendment cases aimed at chilling expression through costly, time
19
consuming litigation.” Batzel, 333 F.3d at 1024 (quoting Metabolife Int’l, Inc. v. Wornick, (9th
20
Cir. 2001) 264 F.3d 832, 839). As the text of the statute explains, the law reflects California’s
21
concern “that there has been a disturbing increase in lawsuits brought primarily to chill the
22
23 valid exercise of the constitutional rights of freedom of speech,” and its related conviction that
24
2
Plaintiff also sued TonerNews.com in a nearly identical action in the Seventeenth Judicial
25 Circuit in and for Broward County, Florida, Case No. CACE-19-009423. Unfortunately,
26 TonerNews.com did not have the funds to retain local counsel and has been bullied by Plaintiff
into removing the articles citing Aster’s toxic chemical levels and issuing a “corrective
27 statement.” Plaintiff’s behavior strikes Defendant’s counsel as belonging in the Soviet Union
rather than the United States, inspiring Defendant’s counsel to take the risk of drafting this
28 motion without compensation prior to the ruling on this motion.

Page 9
1 “it is in the public interest to encourage continued participation in matters of public
2 significance, and that this participation should not be chilled through abuse of the judicial
3
process.” Cal. Civ. Proc. Code §425.16(a).
4
III. LEGAL ARGUMENT
5
The concern that speech is being chilled is squarely implicated here. Through its
6
Florida litigation, Aster has already bullied TonerNews.com into censoring all of its warnings
7
8 about the safety of Aster’s products and forced it to issue “corrective statements” that are
9 Aster’s propaganda pieces.3 Aster is now trying to bully Mr. Giannetta into issuing a similar
10 “correction” to his own opinions and statements on his topic of expertise. Plaintiff’s position is
11
untenable and only this court can correct this miscarriage of justice.
12
Thus, as set forth in detail below, Defendant is entitled to anti-SLAPP relief. Mr.
13
Giannetta’s postings addressed a matter of public interest – the safety of Aster’s printer
14
15 cartridges. And, because Aster cannot demonstrate a probability of success on its speech-
16 based claims, this suit is subject to dismissal. Plaintiff’s Complaint should be stricken, and
17 Defendant should be awarded attorney’s fees.

18
A. Defendant is Entitled to Relief Under California’s Anti-SLAPP Law
19
In applying California’s anti-SLAPP law, courts “engage in a two-part inquiry.” Mindys
20
Cosmetics, Inc. v. Dakar, (9th Cir. 2010) 611 F.3d 590, 595 (internal marks omitted). “First,
21
the defendant must make a prima facie showing that the plaintiff’s suit arises from an act in
22
23 furtherance of the defendant’s rights of petition or free speech.” Id. (internal marks omitted).
24 “[O]nce the defendant has made a prima facie showing, the burden shifts to the plaintiff to
25 demonstrate a probability of prevailing on the challenged claims.” Id. (internal marks omitted).
26
27
3
See https://tonernews.com/forums/topic/websitecontent-51553/.
28

Page 10
1 In performing this analysis, the anti-SLAPP statute is “broadly construed.” Greater Los
2 Angeles Agency on Deafness, Inc. v. Cable News Network, Inc., (9th Cir. 2014) 742 F.3d 414,
3
422.
4
B. Defendant Has Made its Prima Facie Showing
5
Plaintiff’s claims all arise out of Defendant’s online postings. That is activity within the
6
purview of California’s anti-SLAPP law. The anti-SLAPP law is designed to protect “act[s] in
7
8 furtherance of a person’s right of petition or free speech under the United States or California
9 Constitution in connection with a public issue,” which is defined to include “any written or oral
10 statement or writing made in a place open to the public or a public forum in connection with an
11
issue of public interest.” Cal. Civ. Proc. Code §425.16(e). It is well “settled that ‘Web sites
12
accessible to the public . . . are public forums for purposes of the anti-SLAPP statute.” Wong v.
13
Jing, (Ct. App. 2010) 117 Cal. Rptr. 3d 747, 759 (quoting Barrett v. Rosenthal, (Cal. Ct. App.
14
15 2006) 51 Cal. Rptr. 3d 55, 59 n.4).
16 Thus, Defendant’s alleged statements regarding the safety of Plaintiff’s printer
17 cartridges plainly falls within the purview of the anti-SLAPP law. It was published in a public
18
forum and addressed a consumer product in a market that millions of people use and purchase
19
every day. Even where an issue is “not of interest to the public at large, but rather to a limited,
20
but definable portion of the public (a private group, organization, or community),” the anti-
21
SLAPP statute protects activity that occurs “in the context of an ongoing controversy, dispute
22
23 or discussion.” Du Charme v. Inter. Broth. of Elec. Workers Local 45, (Cal. Ct. App. 2003) 110
24 Cal.App.4th 107, 119, (finding Blog Post is protected activity under the anti-SLAPP statute, as
25 it addresses an “ongoing discussion” in the language interpretation industry, which is itself a

26
“limited, but definable portion of the public.”). Thus, the market of people who purchase and
27
use printer cartridges is such a limited but definable portion of the public.
28

Page 11
1 Defendant has, therefore, made their prima facie showing under the first step in the
2 anti-SLAPP analysis.
3
C. Plaintiff Cannot Meet Its Burden of Showing A Probability Of
4
Prevailing On Its Trade Libel Claim
5
Because Defendant made its prima facie showing that Aster’s trade libel claim arises
6
from conduct in furtherance of rights of free speech, the burden shifts to Aster to demonstrate a
7
8 probability of prevailing on that claim. It cannot meet that burden.
9 1. There are no actual statements identified.

10 Under California law, “trade libel is an intentional disparagement of the quality of
11
property, which results in pecuniary damage.” Films of Distinction, Inc. v. Allegro Film Prod.,
12
Inc., (C.D. Cal. 1998) 12 F.Supp.2d 1068, 1081 (“Films of Distinction”). To prove trade libel,
13
Plaintiff must show (1) a statement that (2) was false, (3) disparaging, (4) published to others
14
15 in writing, (5) induced others not to deal with it, and (6) caused special damages. Atlantic Mut.
16 Ins. Co. v. J. Lamb. Inc., (2002) 100 Cal.App.4th 1017, 1035; see also Leonardini v. Shell Oil
17 Co., (1989) 216 Cal.App.3d 547, 572 (“A cause of action for damages for trade libel requires
18
pleading and proof of special damages in the form of pecuniary loss.”).
19
First, Aster has not even identified any statements. Plaintiff likely omitted Mr.
20
Giannetta’s actual statements because his articles are professional and well-documented,
21
especially for a small operation with few financial resources. Instead, in a conclusory fashion,
22
23 Aster merely alleges snippets of Mr. Giannetta’s words, in which he alleged called it a 1)
24 “toner cloner,” that 2) sold “toxic” cartridges, and that 3) it was selling directly on Amazon.
25 (Complaint at ¶7). But Aster does not identify the actual articles posted including the
26
surrounding context, nor does Aster specify the date, time, URL, or any other details about the
27
posting to give Mr. Giannetti fair notice of what he is supposed to respond to.
28

Page 12
1 This snippet style of pleading speech-based claims is not permitted under California
2 law. See Comstock v. Aber, (2012) 212 Cal.App.4th 931, 948 (“It is sometimes said to be a
3
requirement, and it certainly is the common practice, to plead the exact words or the picture or
4
other defamatory matter. The chief reason appears to be that the court must determine, as a
5
question of law, whether the defamatory matter is on its face or capable of the defamatory
6
meaning attributed to it by the innuendo. Hence, the complaint should set the matter out
7
8 verbatim, either in the body or as an attached exhibit.”) (citing 5 Witkin, Cal. Procedure (5th
9 ed. 2008) Pleading, § 739, p. 159.))

10 Plaintiff has utterly failed to plead a trade libel claim which requires that the claim be
11
based on specific statements. See First Advantage Background Servs. Corp. v. Private Eyes,
12
Inc., (N.D. Cal. 2008) 569 F. Supp. 2d 929, 937 (“Private Eyes”); Eldorado Stone v.
13
Renaissance Stone, Inc., (S.D. Cal. Aug. 9, 2005) Case No. 04-cv-2562 JM, 2005 WL
14
15 5517731, at *3 (dismissing trade libel claim where plaintiff failed to identify the author or
16 speaker, recipient, time, and location of each allegedly libelous statement); Films of
17 Distinction, 12 F. Supp. 2d at 1081 n.8 (“trade libel claim must be based on specific
18
statements”).
19
2. The alleged statements cannot be shown to be disparaging
20
because they are pled out of context and First Amendment
21
protections apply.
22
23 Even if the court finds the statements are specific, Plaintiff cannot show that the
24 statements are disparaging. Plaintiff has already failed this test because it did not plead the
25 statements in any context. See Lambert v. Providence Journal Company, (1st Cir. 1975) 508
26
F.2d 656, 658–659 (“Providence Journal”). (“[T]he publication in question must be considered
27
28

Page 13
1 in its entirety; “[i]t may not be divided into segments and each portion treated as a separate
2 unit.” It must be read as a whole”) (citation omitted).

3
Although any loosening of any standard is not necessary to find in favor of Mr.
4
Giannetta, the context of the statements suggest that they should be afforded maximum First
5
Amendment protection. See Morningstar, Inc. v. Superior Court (1994) 23 Cal.App.4th 676,
6
680 (First Amendment protected language in a financial newsletter for “loose, figurative, or
7
8 hyperbolic language.”) (citing Milkovich v. Lorain Journal Co., (1990) 497 U.S. 1, 21.)
9 (“Milkovich”); Blatty v. New York Times Co. (1986) 42 Cal.3d 1033, 1042, cert. den. 485 U.S.
10 934 (The “limitations that define the First Amendment’s zone of protection” are applicable in
11
trade libel cases.)
12
The context of these statements is that they were postings on TonerNews.com and on
13
Mr. Giannetta’s LinkedIn profile. Defendant is passionate about his writing and his beliefs but
14
15 also admits that his postings are not exactly close to being the “paper of record.” Defendant
16 admits to advocating in favor of the remanufacturing industry, for the reasons explained above.
17 The language used on informal forums, in which statements are more likely to be opinions,
18
should be scrutinized even less strictly for the purposes of strengthening First Amendment
19
protection. See Morningstar, Inc. v. Superior Court (1994) 23 Cal.App.4th 676, 694 (besides
20
the statement itself, the context of the statement is taken into account in order to ensure “there
21
is no infringement on free expression.”) (citing Milkovich, 497 U.S. at 17-18.)
22
23 Regardless of how the court finds the context (if Plaintiff had properly alleged the
24 context) affects the meaning of the alleged quotes, however, taking the statements individually,
25 they are not actionable.

26
27
28

Page 14
1 i. The statement “Aster is a Toner Cloner” is not
2 actionable because it is not defamatory.

3
In determining whether a publication has a defamatory meaning, the courts apply a
4
totality of the circumstances test to review the meaning of the language in context and whether
5
it is susceptible of a meaning alleged by the plaintiff. See Monterey Plaza Hotel v. Hotel
6
Employees & Restaurant Employees (1999) 69 Cal.App.4th 1057, 1064–1065 (“Monterey
7
8 Plaza”). Because Plaintiff has only alleged snippets of text, Defendant is barely able respond
9 and the court cannot perform the analysis required to consider the context of the statements.
10 “[A] defamatory meaning must be found, if at all, in a reading of the publication as a
11
whole.” Kaelin v. Globe Communications Corp. (9th Cir. 1998) 162 F.3d 1036, 1040. “This is
12
a rule of reason. Defamation actions cannot be based on snippets taken out of context.” Id.; see
13
Greenbelt Pub. Assn. v. Bresler (1970) 398 U.S. 6, 13–14 [when viewed in context of the
14
15 entire article, no reasonable reader would interpret the word “blackmail” to mean that the
16 plaintiff had committed the crime of blackmail]; Providence Journal, 508 F.2d at 658–659.
17 [T]he publication in question must be considered in its entirety; “[i]t may not be divided into
18
segments and each portion treated as a separate unit. It must be read as a whole in order to
19
understand its import and the effect which it was calculated to have on the reader and
20
construed in the light of the whole scope [of the publication]. Monterey Plaza, 69 Cal.App.4th
21
at 1064–1065. (citations omitted). The fact that a statement “[s]tanding alone” could be
22
23 construed as false is not sufficient to support a defamation claim. Id.
24 The first statement identified is that Mr. Giannetta said Aster was a “Toner Cloner.”
25 (Compl. ¶7) This language cannot be understood to be defamatory. In industry jargon, there
26
are only two types of aftermarket cartridges, newly built cartridges and remanufactured
27
cartridges. One way to describe the new build process is to “clone” the OEM cartridge. Aster
28

Page 15
1 does indeed make a “clone” or “new build” cartridges, as opposed to the other type,
2 remanufactured cartridges. A clone simply means a “copy” or “genetically identical.” 4 This is

3
also not disparaging, as many people seek to buy clones as a very low-cost alternative to
4
buying OEM cartridges. Aster implies that “clone” necessarily means that it violates
5
intellectual property, but that definition is not even supported by the dictionary.
6
ii. The second quote is not adequately alleged
7
8 because it was not pled in context
9 The second quote alleged is that Aster sells toxic toner cartridges. (Compl. ¶7).
10 Although calling a cartridge “toxic” may be disparaging, the statement was not pled in context
11
to give the reader the full statement made by Plaintiff. If Plaintiff had disclosed the full
12
statement, it would have shown that Mr. Giannetta’s opinion is based on scientific studies that
13
use the word toxic. (Giannetta declaration at ¶¶7-10). Mr. Giannetta is not an engineer and
14
15 always disclosed that his opinions were based on scientific studies conducted by third party
16 experts. (Giannetta decl. at ¶¶4-12). See Providence Journal, 508 F.2d at 658–659. (“[T]he
17 publication in question must be considered in its entirety; “[i]t may not be divided into
18
segments and each portion treated as a separate unit….It must be read as a whole[.]) (citations
19
omitted).
20
iii. The third statement is not disparaging
21
The statement that Plaintiff sells direct on Amazon is not disparaging. (Compl. ¶7).
22
23 Plaintiff did not include any context to explain why this is disparaging. Plaintiff merely claims
24 in conclusory fashion that Defendant claimed it sold products direct to the consumer, but next
25
26
27
4
Miriam-Webster’s Dictionary
28

Page 16
1 claims that “Plaintiff has never sold any of its products directly to the consumer” (Compl. at
2 ¶¶7-8). Lacking is any explanation why the statement is disparaging.

3
3. The statements are not provably false
4
Even if the statements are found to be disparaging and sufficiently in context, Plaintiff
5
cannot show that Mr. Giannetta’s statements were provably false because Mr. Giannetta has
6
disclosed the factual basis for his opinions. Mr. Giannetta’s opinions based on facts that he
7
8 disclosed. These facts that he cited are in the public domain. The facts on which Mr.
9 Giannetta relied are studies conducted by third parties and are not provably false. See Franklin
10 v. Dynamic Details, Inc., (2004) 116 Cal.App.4th 375, 387. (An opinion is not actionable if it
11
discloses all the statements of fact on which the opinion is based, and those statements are
12
true).
13
4. The statement that Aster’s clones are toxic is not actionable
14
15 because it is Mr. Giannetta’s opinion based on disclosed
16 factual evidence in the public domain.
17 The second alleged statement was that Aster’s clones are toxic. This is Mr. Giannetta’s
18
opinion based on a study (not conducted by Mr. Giannetta) that found that “a cartridge made
19
by Aster tested positive for elevated decaBDE levels.” (See Giannetta declaration at 8; Exhibit
20
“B” – Actionable Intelligence, Testing of Contaminated Cartridges Continues to Make Waves,
21
Page 5). Another study that numerous publications reported on, also showed “high
22
23 concentrations of decabromodiphenyl ether (DecaBDE), a toxic flame retardant, within certain
24 new-build cartridges.”5 Every time that Mr. Giannetta posted about Aster’s products being
25
26
27
5 “Excessive” DecaBDE reported in new builds, The Recycler, (September 27, 2018) (citing
Digital Imaging Magazine).
28

Page 17
1 toxic, Mr. Giannetta disclosed that his opinion was based on scientific studies in the public
2 domain. (See Giannetta decl. ¶12).

3
5. The quote that Aster sells on Amazon is not actionable
4
because it is Mr. Giannetta’s opinion based on disclosed
5
evidence.
6
The third quote alleged was that Aster sells directly on Amazon. This is also Mr.
7
8 Giannetta’s opinion based on his own research of information in the public domain. Mr.
9 Giannetta documented public web pages from Amazon and public filings from the trademark
10 office regarding the trademarks being used to sell Aster’s products on Amazon. (Giannetta
11
decl. at ¶¶13-18). This is factual information that Mr. Giannetta compiled based on publicly
12
available information (See Exhibits D, E, and F).
13
Although Mr. Giannetta could have legally relied this information to make a factual
14
15 statement, the alleged quote is also purely Mr. Giannetta’s opinion (and thus not demonstrably
16 false). There is no dispute that Aster’s products are being sold on Amazon, as Aster permits its
17 resellers to sell its products on Amazon. The dispute is over who controls the accounts that are
18
being sold on Amazon. Mr. Giannetta’s research documented evidence that link these accounts
19
back to Aster. (Giannetta decl. at ¶¶13-18) For instance, Mr. Giannetta has documented that
20
according to public filings, the accounts are located at the same address and bear the same
21
attorney’s name as Plaintiff’s business. Other names used in trademark applications are also
22
23 related to Plaintiff’s business, such as by being current or former employees or relatives of
24 Aster’s employees. (See Exhibits D, E, and F; Giannetta decl. at ¶¶13-18). Based on this
25 research, Mr. Giannetta believes that Aster also controls these Amazon accounts. The degree
26
to which Plaintiff exercises control over these accounts is Mr. Giannetta’s own opinion that
27
cannot be proven false, and his factual basis for his opinions have been disclosed.
28

Page 18
1 D. Plaintiff failed to plead that anyone was induced not to deal with it
2 because of the statements

3
To successfully plead trade libel, a plaintiff “must identify the particular purchasers
4
who have refrained from dealing with him and specify the transactions of which he claims to
5
have been deprived.” Erlich v. Etner, 224 Cal. App. 2d 69, 73-74, (1964) (“Erlich”).
6
Plaintiff alleges that defendant’s statements caused to “suffer[] direct financial harm[,]”
7
8 and that plaintiff has lost “prospective customers” because of the statements. (Compl. at ¶16.)
9 Those allegations do not rise to the level of identifying “particular purchasers” or “specif[ic]
10 transactions.” Erlich, 224 Cal. App. 2d at 73-74. Plaintiff has failed to plead the existence of
11
any such party or lost transactions. (Compl. at ¶¶10-17).
12
E. Plaintiff has failed to plead special damages
13
Plaintiff has not satisfied the special damages requirement for trade libel under
14
15 California law. See Erlich, 224 Cal. App. 2d at 73-74 ([It] is not enough to show a general
16 decline in [plaintiff’s] business resulting from the falsehood . . . only the loss of specific sales
17 can be recovered.”). See Isuzu Motors Ltd. v. Consumers Union of United States, Inc., (C.D.
18
Cal. 1998) 12 F.Supp.2d 1035, 1047 (“Isuzu Motors”) (“A bare allegation of the amount of
19
pecuniary loss is insufficient for the pleading of a trade libel claim.”) “Here, Plaintiff’s
20
complaint does not even specify the amount of damage, and simply refers to an amount to be
21
ascertained at trial.” New.Net, Inc. v. Lavasoft (C.D. Cal. 2004) 356 F.Supp.2d 1090
22
23 (“New.Net”). To allege special damages, a plaintiff must “identify[ ] customers or transactions
24 lost as a result of disparagement, in order to state a prima facie case.” See Isuzu Motors at
25 1043.
26
Plaintiff has failed to allege facts demonstrating special damages. In New.Net, the court
27
held that a plaintiff could not satisfy the special damages requirement for trade libel by simply
28

Page 19
1 referring to an amount to be ascertained at trial rather than specifying the amount of damage.
2 New.Net, 356 F. Supp. 2d at 1113. The court in New.Net noted that “a bare allegation of the
3
amount of pecuniary loss is insufficient for the pleading of a trade libel claim.” Id.; In Private
4
Eyes, the court noted that the plaintiff merely alleged that the libelous statements “harmed
5
PEI's business relationship with [a third party].” 569 F. Supp. 2d at 937. However, the court
6
noted that the plaintiff did not allege the amount of business it had from the third party prior to
7
8 the defendant allegedly making these statements, how much it had after, or the value of the
9 business. Id. The court thereby held that the plaintiff had not adequately pled special damages.
10 Id.
11
Here, Plaintiff provides only a bare allegation that it has or will sustain damages in
12
excess of $1,000,000 but acknowledges that the exact amount will be proven at trial. (Compl.
13
¶19.) Moreover, Plaintiff does not allege the amount of business it had prior to Defendant
14
15 allegedly making these statements, how much it had after those statements were made, or the
16 value of the business. See Private Eyes, 569 F. Supp. 2d at 937. Accordingly, Plaintiff has
17 failed to satisfy the special damages requirement for a trade libel claim.
18
F. Plaintiff Aster is a limited public figure
19
The United States Supreme Court has defined two categories of public figures for First
20
Amendment analysis. First, the “all purpose” public figure who has “achiev[ed] such pervasive
21
fame or notoriety that he becomes a public figure for all purposes and in all contexts.” The
22
23 second category is the “limited purpose” individual who “voluntarily injects himself or is
24 drawn into a particular public controversy and thereby becomes a public figure for a limited
25 range of issues.” See Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc. (1974) 418 U.S. 323, 351. Plaintiff Aster is a
26
limited public figure for the range of issues related to the safety of its products. See e.g.,
27
28

Page 20
1 Mosesian v. McClatchy Newspapers (1991) 233 Cal.App.3d 1685, 1688-1689 (Plaintiff was a
2 limited public figure for the controversies arising from its products).
3
G. Plaintiff failed to plead actual malice
4
Because Aster is a limited public figure, the constitution requires that Plaintiff plead
5
that Mr. Giannetta made his statements with actual malice. See Melaleuca, Inc. v. Clark, 66
6
Cal.App.4th 1344, 1350, 78 Cal.Rptr.2d 627 (1998). “A statement is made with actual malice
7
8 when the publisher either knows the statement is false or has some serious subjective doubt
9 about the truth of the statement.” This would be impossible to do, because Mr. Giannetta’s
10 opinions are based on factual evidence from third-party studies in the public domain. Aster
11
cannot allege that Defendant published the articles with “actual malice.” See Elec. Frontier
12
Found. v. Global Equity Mgmt. (SA) Pty Ltd., (N.D. Cal. 2017) 290 F. Supp. 3d 923, 945-46
13
(trade libel requires proof of actual malice).
14
15 Accordingly, since it has not pled any demonstrably false statements, special damages,
16 inducement, or actual malice, Aster cannot carry its burden of demonstrating that it has a
17 probability of prevailing on its trade libel claim, Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 425.16(c)(1)-(2).
18
H. Plaintiff Also Cannot Meet Its Burden of Showing A Probability Of
19
Prevailing On Its Defamation and False Light Claims
20
For the same reasons as above, Plaintiff cannot meet its burden of showing a
21
probability of prevailing on its other claims. All of Plaintiff’s claims depend on the same
22
23 analysis as above in its trade libel claim. See Eisenberg v. Alameda Newspapers, Inc. (1999)
24 74 Cal.App.4th 1359, 1385, fn. 13 (“[W]hen a false light claim is coupled with a defamation
25 claim, the false light claim is essentially superfluous, and stands or falls on whether it meets
26
the same requirements as the defamation cause of action.”).
27
28

Page 21
1 These claims must be dismissed because they are asserted against the same Defendant,
2 are based on the same allegations, and implicate the same evidence as Plaintiff's defamation
3
claim. See Sarver v. Hurt Locker LLC, (C.D. Cal. Oct. 13, 2011) Case No. 2:10-CV-09034-
4
JHN, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 157503, 2011 WL 11574477, at *10 (“Plaintiff's false light claim
5
and his defamation claims are redundant because they are based on the same publication or
6
utterance.”); Brooks v. Physicians Clinical Lab., Inc., (E.D. Cal. Mar. 20, 2000) Case No. CIV.
7
8 S-99-2155WBSDAD, 2000 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13603, 2000 WL 336546, at *4 (“Plaintiff's false
9 light claim is duplicative of his libel claim and should, accordingly, be dismissed.”); Smith v.
10 Santa Rosa Democrat, (N.D. Cal. Oct. 20, 2011) Case No. C 11-02411 SI, 2011 U.S. Dist.
11
LEXIS 121449, 2011 WL 5006463, at *6 (“The other claims plaintiff attempts to raise—false
12
light, intrusion on solitude, public disclosure of private facts and civil conspiracy—rest on the
13
same facts as [its] defamation claim. As such, they are all duplicative and must be dismissed as
14
15 well.”).
16 IV. CONCLUSION
17 California’s Anti-SLAPP protections apply to Mr. Giannetta’s postings on his LinkedIn

18
Profile and TonerNews.com. Plaintiff’s speech-based claims failed to plead demonstrably-
19
false statements, inducement, special damages or actual malice, as would have all been
20
required to establish a likelihood of prevailing. For the foregoing reasons, Defendant requests
21
that the court strike the complaint and award Defendant its attorney’s fees.
22
23
24 Respectfully Submitted,
25
26
DATED: June 10, 2019 By: /s/ Mark L. Javitch .
27
Mark L. Javitch. Javitch (SBN 323729)
28 Attorney at Law

Page 22
1 480 S. Ellsworth Ave
San Mateo CA 94401
2 Tel: 650-781-8000
Fax: 650-648-0705
3

STEVEN GIANNETTA
5
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Page 23
DocuSign Envelope ID: 7E213DF6-7AD1-4435-A0E1-F1C56FAAD62E
1 Mark L. Javitch (CA SBN 323729)

Javitch Law Office
2 480 S. Ellsworth Ave.
San Mateo, CA 94401
3 Telephone: 650-781-8000
4 Facsimile: 650-648-0705
mark@javitchlawoffice.com
6
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
7
COUNTY OF ORANGE
8
9 ASTER GRAPHICS, INC. Case No.: 30-2019-01065193-CU-DF-CJC
Plaintiff,
10
v. DECLARATION OF STEVEN GIANNETTA
11
STEVE GIANNETTA,
12
Defendant.
13
14
I, Steven Giannetta, hereby declare and state as follows:
15
16 1. I live in Fullerton, CA.
17 2. This declaration is based on personal knowledge of the matters set forth herein.
18 3. I am the Defendant in this action.

19 4. I do not have any technical engineering degree, so the words I choose are based on the
20
layperson meaning of the words.
21
5. It is my opinion that newly built cartridges or “clones” pose a health and safety risk to the
22
general public that uses printers and printer cartridges.
23
24 6. This opinion is based off several articles discussing studies that show that when these
25 cartridges were tested, they showed high levels of toxic chemicals.
26
27 1
30-2019-01065193-CU-DF-CJC
28
1 7. For instance, an article I posted from The Recycler Magazine, said that when four of these
2 cartridges were tested from Amazon, they found “high concentrations of decabromodiphenyl
3 ether (DecaBDE), a halogenated flame retardant.” (See - Exhibit “A” - “Excessive”
4
DecaBDE reported in new-builds – The Recycler, September 27, 2018.)
5
8. Another study specifically studied Aster’s cartridges and found that “a cartridge made by
6
Aster tested positive for elevated decaBDE levels.” (See Exhibit “B” – Actionable
7
8 Intelligence, Testing of Contaminated Cartridges Continues to Make Waves, Page 5)
9 9. According to the article, the chemical DecaBDE is “difficult to compose” and is banned
10 above a certain level in the European Union.

11 10. Another article stated that a cartridge tested by Aster that was purchased in Moscow
12
exhibited “a high DecaBDE load of 5,600 mg / kg was measured.” (See Exhibit “C” at page
13
5 – “Welcome to the DecaBDE-Club: Aster).
14
11. Aster is a cartridge manufacturer that creates new build cartridges.
15
16 12. Every time I expressed my opinion that Aster was a “toxic toner cloner” I always disclosed
17 that my opinion was based on scientific studies.
18 13. It is my opinion that Aster has been selling direct to the consumer on Amazon.
19 14. This opinion is based on that in own independent research, many Amazon accounts that were
20
selling newly build toner cartridges seemed to have suspicious similarities to Aster.
21
15. I documented and shared these findings in my postings. See Exhibits “D,” “E” and “F.”
22
16. For instance, the accounts were filed by the same trademark attorney as Aster uses, at the
23
24 same address and phone number, and sometimes by people and/or entitles that seemed to be
25 employees or relatives of the company.
26
27 2
30-2019-01065193-CU-DF-CJC
28
1 17. It’s my opinion that Aster either controls these entitles directly or is asserting control over
2 these entities somehow that they are benefitting from the Amazon accounts in question.
3 18. Every time I posted about Aster’s Amazon account activity, I always included my findings
4
based on publicly available data, attached as Exhibits “D,” “E” and “F.”
5
6
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing and the
7 attached Exhibits “A” – “F” is true and correct to the best of my knowledge.
8
9 Executed this 8th day of June, 2019, at San Mateo, California.
10
_________ .
11 Steven Giannetta
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27 3
30-2019-01065193-CU-DF-CJC
28
6/7/2019 “Excessive” DecaBDE reported in new-builds – The Recycler
(https://www.therecycler.com)
“Excessive” DecaBDE reported in new-builds

(https://www.therecycler.com/posts/excessive-decabde-reported-in-new-builds/)
September 27, 2018
(https://www.therecycler.com/wp-
content/uploads/2018/09/Fotolia_44497572_XS.jpg)
Chemical structure of a molecule of
decabromodiphenyl ether, a brominated
ame retardant.
The analysis of two new-build cartridges has revealed concentrations of a restricted ame retardant which exceed the permitted limit.
Recent testing, carried out by LGA on behalf of an unnamed German organisation, has revealed high concentrations of decabromodiphenyl ether (DecaBDE), a
toxic ame retardant, within certain new-build cartridges. Digital Imaging (DI) magazine reports.
DecaBDE, the substance in question, the use of which above a particular quantity was banned in electrical appliances (including printer cartridges) across the
European Union ten years ago, is described as “di cult to decompose” and has been assessed and classi ed as a Persistent Organic Pollutant (POP). It is also
listed as a Substance of Concern by the European Chemicals Agency. The supplier of a product has a duty to inform commercial customers if that product
contains a concentration of more than 0.1 percent of a Substance of Concern.
Many new-build cartridges contain a variety of di erent plastics and increased recyclates which can a ect the melting point of the plastic and its exibility. These
product and design variations make remanufacturing complex and cost prohibitive and disposing of cartridges with higher levels of decaBDE could be
problematic.
In a joint submission on the Recast of the Persistent Organic Pollutants (POPs) Regulation, ten of Europe’s leading plastics recycling organisations said “Over the
last years, the recycling industry has developed advanced separation techniques to sort and eliminate plastics containing brominated ame retardants, so that
the recycled plastics meet the concentration levels set in EU and international standards and regulations to protect human health and the environment.
European plastics recycling companies are pioneering the development of technology and treatment processes to recover complex plastics from WEEE and
ELVs.”
DI reported that the cartridges in question were from Static Control and in response to the story Static Control released a statement, in which it declared that “we
take accusations of this sort very seriously.”
“As with most companies, we purchase the plastics in our products from many companies,” Static Control continued. “Each vendor assures us their products
comply with all European laws. We try to use as many recycled products as possible, and the ame retardant is required for the successful reuse of recycled
plastics, but in a level below the level prohibited by law.”
Commenting that “the competitor has provided few details”, Static Control also announced plans to “commission an external European-based testing facility to
conduct tests immediately on some of our plastics to see if there is any validity in these accusations.”
“We want to assure our customers that we will investigate these claims thoroughly and take all necessary appropriate actions,” the company added.
There was also a response to the results by ETIRA, the European Toner and Inkjet Remanufacturing Association, which called for the EU and its Member States to
“actively ensure that all cartridges imported into the European Union comply in every manner with European WEEE, REACH and RoHS directives and Intellectual
Property regulations to protect the health and well-being of EU citizens and the environment.”
https://www.therecycler.com/posts/excessive-decabde-reported-in-new-builds/ 1/30
6/7/2019 “Excessive” DecaBDE reported in new-builds – The Recycler
The trade association for called for the EU to mandate that all toner and inkjet cartridges placed onto the market are designed and manufactured so as to be
suitable for reuse as a cartridge, whilst also stressing that “for consumers and businesses, the best options are remanufactured OEM cartridges, as supplied by
the 3,000 companies across Europe. Remanufactured OEM cartridges are less expensive than new OEM cartridges but are 100 percent environment-friendly.”
ETIRA added: “Eliminating toxic products from the market and ensuring cartridges are entirely reused could generate more than 16,000 new SME jobs across the
European Union.”
(http://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.therecycler.com%2Fposts%2Fexcessive-decabde-reported-in-new-
builds%2F&t=%E2%80%9CExcessive%E2%80%9D+DecaBDE+reported+in+new-builds)
(http://www.linkedin.com/shareArticle?mini=true&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.therecycler.com%2Fposts%2Fexcessive-decabde-reported-in-new-builds%2F&title=%E
builds&summary=%5Bcaption+id%3D%22attachment_79700%22+align%3D%22aligncenter%22+width%3D%22246%22%5D+Chemical+structure+of+a+molecule+of+d
build+cartridges+has+revealed+concentrations+of+a+restricted+ ame+retardant+which+exceed+the+permitted+limit.%0D%0A%0D%0ARecent+testing)
(http://twitter.com/share?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.therecycler.com%2Fposts%2Fexcessive-decabde-reported-in-new-builds%2F&text=)
(mailto:?subject=The%20Recycler%20:%20“Excessive”%20DecaBDE%20reported%20in%20new-
builds&body=here%20is%20a%20link%20to%20a%20site%20I%20really%20like.%20%20%20https://www.therecycler.com/posts/excessive-decabde-reported-in-
new-builds/)
Related Posts
(https://www.therecycler.com/posts/european-
(https://www.therecycler.com/posts/bpf-
(https://www.therecycler.com/posts/etira-
(https://www.therecycler.com/posts/oil-
parliament- unveils-new- on-label- lobbies-eu- supply- meets-german-
passes-plastics- circular- confusion/) commission-on- vulnerable-what- regulator-to-
ban/) economy-goals/) ETIRA on label cartridges-in- it-means-for- discuss-empties-
European BPF unveils new confusion new-weee- remanufacturing/) under-weee-
Parliament directive/)
circular economy (https://www.therecycler.com/posts/etira-
Oil supply directive/)
passes plastics goals on-label- ETIRA lobbies EU vulnerable: What ETIRA meets
ban (https://www.therecycler.com/posts/bpf-
confusion/) Commission on it means for German
(https://www.therecycler.com/posts/european-
unveils-new- cartridges in new remanufacturing regulator to
parliament- circular- WEEE directive (https://www.therecycler.com/posts/oil-
discuss empties
passes-plastics- economy-goals/) (https://www.therecycler.com/posts/etira-
supply- under WEEE
ban/) lobbies-eu- vulnerable-what- directive
commission-on- it-means-for- (https://www.therecycler.com/posts/etira-
cartridges-in- remanufacturing/) meets-german-
new-weee- regulator-to-
directive/) discuss-empties-
under-weee-
directive/)
Categories : UKCRA feed (https://www.therecycler.com/posts/category/ukcra-feed/)World Focus (https://www.therecycler.com/posts/category/world-focus/)
Tags : ETIRA (https://www.therecycler.com/posts/tag/etira/) LGA (https://www.therecycler.com/posts/tag/lga/) Plastics

(https://www.therecycler.com/posts/tag/plastics/) Pollution (https://www.therecycler.com/posts/tag/pollution/) WEEE
(https://www.therecycler.com/posts/tag/weee/)
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in (https://www.therecycler.com/wp-login.php?redirect_to=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.therecycler.com%2Fposts%2Fexcessive-decabde-reported-
in-new-builds%2F) to post a comment.
Search The Recycler

Search
Latest Stories
LMI Solutions launches LMI University (https://www.therecycler.com/posts/lmi-solutions-launches-lmi-university/)
LD Products launches business inkjet cartridges (https://www.therecycler.com/posts/ld-products-launches-business-inkjet-cartridges/)

Canon launches two new MegaTank printers (https://www.therecycler.com/posts/canon-launches-two-new-megatank-printers/)
NCR acquires OKI Brazil key assets (https://www.therecycler.com/posts/ncr-acquires-oki-brazil-key-assets/)

Xerox acquires two dealers (https://www.therecycler.com/posts/xerox-acquires-two-dealers/)
https://www.therecycler.com/posts/excessive-decabde-reported-in-new-builds/ 2/30
Testing of Contaminated Toner
Cartridges Continues to Make
Waves in Europe
Actionable Intelligence | Testing of Contaminated Cartridges Continues to Make Waves in Europe
In recent months, German industry statement once again avowing that it

publication Digital Imaging (www.di- has audited its cartridges and that the
branche.de) has been publishing a series cartridges that it is selling in Europe no
of articles about new-build compatible longer have elevated levels of
toner cartridges being sold in Europe that decaBDE. And in perhaps the biggest
contain elevated levels of a banned toxic twist we have encountered in the whole
fire retardant called decabromdiphenyl decaBDE saga to date, Static says its
HP sees elevated
ether (decaBDE). On January 4, Digital own testing of a variety of cartridges,
decaBDE levels in Imaging published yet another article including those of its competitors, has
new-builds as one about the issue following the news that shown decaBDE is “endemic” in the
more compelling the European Toner and Inkjet aftermarket supplies industry, found in
Remanufacturers Association (ETIRA) new-build cartridges, remanufactured
reason why had commissioned testing of new-build cartridges, and components alike.
customers should toner cartridges that found the presence Static has not said at what levels
buy OEM cartridges. of elevated levels of decaBDE. decaBDE was found, named names, or
In the wake of Digital Imaging’s newest provided any details of its testing, but
post, we reached out to various industry what Static’s testing might reveal could
contacts to see what they had to say put a chill in the hearts of some of the
about the issue. HP sees elevated remanufacturers that have been
decaBDE levels in new-builds as one pushing the testing of new-build toner
more compelling reason why customers cartridges. As more companies and
should buy OEM cartridges. groups commission testing and reveal
Remanufacturers are looking to make results, it will be interesting to see how
hay of the issue and are trying to spread broad a problem this becomes and if
awareness so that authorities in various indeed it implicates a wide swath of
European countries will take action. Europe’s aftermarket toner cartridge
They see the decaBDE contamination industry beyond just new-builds or if the
found in new-build toner cartridges as a problem mainly lies with new compatible
scandal and an opportunity—one that toner cartridges.
they hope will help them win back
What’s the Scoop on DecaBDE?
market share they have been losing to
cheaper compatibles. New-build toner What is decaBDE? It is a flame retardant
cartridge makers Aster and Print-Rite that has been used in plastics and
provided us with statements about their synthetic fibers and carpets. Its use in
compliance with European regulations. toner cartridges stems from its use in
Of all the companies we contacted, recycled plastic for cartridge casings that
Static Control had perhaps the most can stand up to the high heat involved in
interesting response. It has issued a the fusing process.
© 2019 Actionable Intelligence » HP’s use is with permission from Actionable Intelligence 2
Under the directive, The problem is decaBDE is considered and electronic equipment, it would cover
to be a persistent, bioaccumulative, and toner cartridges, as long as they have
levels of toxic substance. Because it builds up in chips. Thus, Digital Imaging asserts that
polybrominated the environment and may adversely levels of decaBDE higher than 1,000
diphenyl ethers must affect the well-being of humans and mg/kg have been banned in toner
animals, the manufacture and use of cartridges in the EU since 2008.
be lower than 1,000
decaBDE is restricted in some parts of
milligrams per Daniel Orth, managing director of
the world. Tonerdumping, one of the companies
kilogram (mg/kg). In Europe, which is where the testing of whose cartridges were found to have
new-build toner cartridges is taking elevated levels of decaBDE, has a
place, the European Union (EU) different point of view. He argues that
Restriction of Hazardous Substances decaBDE will be banned in toner
(RoHS) first called for decaBDE to be cartridges once the REACH directive on
phased out of electrical and electronic decaBDE goes into effect in March 2019
equipment by 2006. After a period of but says that toner cartridges are not
exemptions and some litigation, it was necessarily covered under previous
officially banned in such products starting directives. He tells us:
July 1, 2008. In an RoHS directive from It is still not clear if there are EU
June 2011, polybrominated diphenyl
regulations broken. DecaBDE-
ethers are on the list of banned plastic is in general forbidden
substances. Under the directive, levels of from 2nd March 2019 on.
polybrominated diphenyl ethers must be Before it is only forbidden for
lower than 1,000 milligrams per kilogram electronic products. Mr. Ortner
(mg/kg). [author of the Digital Imaging
Then, in February 2017, the EU stepped article] wrote that toner
restrictions up further when it published a cartridges are covered by a
restriction on decaBDE use as part of an regulation from 2008, because
amended annex XVII to its Registration, he thinks that toners is an
Evaluation, Authorization and Restriction electronic product regarding the
of Chemicals (REACH) regulation. Under German electronic waste law.
this regulation, slated to take effect But by definition there are three
March 2, 2019, decaBDE levels can be types of products: electronic
no higher than 0.1 percent (1,000 mg/kg) products, non-electronic
by weight. The REACH regulation notes, products, and products where
“The proposed restriction should not you can replace the electronic
apply to electrical and electronic part. The third product is only
equipment within the scope of Directive covered by RoHs regulations
2011/65/EU of the European Parliament when it is not possible to
and of the Council [here, the EU is remove the chip from the
referring to the RoHS directive noted cartridge. But every
above], as the placing on the market of remanufacturer will confirm that
such equipment containing it is possible to remove the chip,
polybrominated diphenyl ethers (‘PBDE’) because remanufacturers are
in a concentration above 0.1 % by weight replacing chips on cartridges
is already regulated by that Directive.” every day.
According to Digital Imaging, because And here you find the German
the RoHS directive applies to electrical ElektroG (electronic waste law):
https://www.elektrogesetz.de/wp- REACH end users have the right to

content/uploads/ElektroG_20151 receive and it is the duty of the supplier
020.pdf and importer of articles to communicate
information on Substances of Very High
On page 21 you find a list of
Concern (SVHC) in their articles as
products which are defined as
defined by Article 33 of the REACH
electronic waste. Printers are
Regulation: every supplier within the
mentioned, but toners are not.
supply chain has to provide, free of
Volker Kappius, managing director of charge, the recipient of an article with
Delacamp and spokesperson for German information on the presence of every
cartridge remanufacturing industry SVHC contained in this article (> 0.1%,
network DKWU, however, disagrees. He w/w) together with sufficient information
says he has confirmation from German on the safe use of the article. The duty to
authorities that chipped printer cartridges inform about SVHC applies to articles.
are subject to RoHS and the Waste An article is an object which during
Electrical and Electronic Equipment production is given a special shape,
(WEE) Directive and that decaBDE has surface, or design which determines its
been “banned in all electronic equipment function to a greater degree than does its
TÜV Rheinland’s headquarters including cartridges since 2008.” chemical composition. Consequently,
Mr. Kappius directed us to new-build cartridges are articles.”
documentation that supports his point of We wrote to the European Union seeking
view. He notes that a FAQ in the WEE a definitive answer and clarity on rules
directive (see page 8) indicates that regarding decaBDE in toner cartridges,
printer cartridges fall under the scope of but unfortunately their only response was
the directive as long as they “contain to send a link to the European Chemicals
electrical parts and are dependent on Agency’s dedicated website
electric currents or electromagnetic fields (www.echa.europa.eu/support).
in order to function properly.” The FAQ
notes that cartridges consisting of just ink Who Found What?
and a container would not fall under the The latest Digital Imaging article builds
scope of the directive. Says Mr. Kappius, upon what was revealed in the
“A laser printer all-in-one cartridge is magazine’s previous coverage, including
always dependent on an electric current. its initial September 2018 article about
Even more so if it is chipped.” the topic (see “German Magazine Says
We also found a pertinent FAQ on the Static Control Marketed Contaminated
RoHS directive that states, “Only Compatibles”) and a December 2018
consumables with an equipment report following ETIRA’s announcement
constituent meeting the now more about testing it commissioned (see
specific definition of EEE in Article 3(1) “ETIRA-Commissioned Tests Find More
and 3(2) such as printer cartridges are Contaminated New-Build Toner
EEE and in the scope of RoHS 2.” Cartridges”).
Mr. Kappius added that in his view even We exchanged emails with the author of
though the new regulations on decaBDE Digital Imaging’s coverage of this topic,
under REACH are not slated to take Dr. Hubert Ortner, who says TÜV
effect until March 2019, the contaminated Rheinland has conducted testing of ten
new-build toner cartridges still infringe on new-build toner cartridge brands/models
REACH regulations. He explains, “Under sold in Europe (except for one model,
which was sold in Russia), and nine of and key until now” because “no HP
these tests showed elevated decaBDE cartridge was analyzed as a reference for
levels. The results of those tests are this test and the cartridge was not
summarized in the table below. intended for the European market.”
Digital Imaging has now, however,
One new development that had not been
decided to reveal the name of the
revealed in Digital Imaging’s prior articles
manufacturer and cartridge model
about the decaBDE issue was that a
“because the analyses by TÜV
cartridge made by Aster tested positive
Rheinland/LGA are trustworthy even
for elevated decaBDE levels. Digital
without negative control.” Digital Imaging
Imaging’s January 4 article says this was
notes that this cartridge was not intended
actually the first new-build toner cartridge
for sale in Germany but only in Eastern
to be submitted for testing by TÜV
Europe and so may not be “objectionable
Rheinland, all the way back in June.
… from a formal legal point of view.”
Digital Imaging says it kept the name of
the cartridge manufacturer “under lock Digital Imaging says the source for much
Andy Binder, vice president and general

manager of office supplies solutions for
HP Inc., provided us with the following
statement:
The results of the tests
commissioned by ETIRA are
quite concerning. HP already
restricted DecaBDE in its
General Specification for the
Environment in 1998. Usage of
DecaBDE in electrical and
electronic equipment was
banned in the EU in 2008
because of hazards to human
health and the environment. If
of the contaminated plastic is likely the results reported by ETIRA
Huiwei Corporation, a Zhuhai-based are true, this seems to indicate
manufacturer of new-build empty toner a systematic issue from a
cartridges. The article quoted Mr. human health and
Kappius as saying Huiwei makes about environmental perspective. This
60 to 80 percent of all the plastic problem is yet another good
cartridge casings for new-build toner reason to rely on and print with
cartridges made in China. original OEM cartridges, such
Interestingly, Digital Imaging says that as HP original toner cartridges,
The results of the more testing of new-build toner which are produced according
cartridges is planned. ETIRA supposedly to stringent quality, compliance,
tests commissioned
will commission further test results in and substance controls
by ETIRA are quite January, including cartridges made by standards.
concerning … If the China’s big toner cartridge manufacturers It should be noted that in its testing of
results reported by such as Aster, Ninestar, and Print-Rite. various new-build toner cartridges TÜV
Digital Imaging adds that wta Carsten Rheinland also tested the comparable
ETIRA are true, this
Weser GmbH and another unnamed HP toner cartridge models as a point of
seems to indicate a German remanufacturer are also comparison. In its initial article on the
systematic issue commissioning testing in order to use the decaBDE issue, Digital Imaging said that
from a human health results as sales tools. And, as noted the HP toner cartridges tested had less
above and discussed in more detail than 5 mg/kg decaBDE, well under the
and environmental below, Static Control indicates it will be 1,000 mg/kg limit.
perspective. releasing more information about its test
results. Tonerdumping Response
Shortly after last month’s Digital Imaging
HP Comments
report indicated TÜV Rheinland tested a
All the new-build cartridge models that Tonerdumping cartridge and found a
have had elevated decaBDE levels so far decaBDE value of 14,000 mg/kg,
have been designed to replace HP Tonerdumping’s Mr. Orth provided us
original toner cartridges. Thus, we with a statement indicating that
reached out to HP to learn what its take Tonerdumping is taking the issue
might be on the ongoing testing in seriously and is working with its suppliers
Europe.
Aster Statement
We asked Aster if it could comment on
the decaBDE issue in light of Digital
Imaging’s report that one of its toner
cartridges was found to have elevated
(see “Tonerdumping Responds to levels of decaBDE. Similar to what Mr.
DecaBDE Issue”).
Orth said, Aster explains it has been
The latest Digital Imaging article says it working to meet the REACH regulation.
was an HP 412X toner cartridge made by The company says third-party testing
Static Control that had elevated levels of shows its new product samples meet this
the flame retardant. Mr. Orth tells us he standard.
identified the manufacturer from photos of
the cartridge that Digital Imaging sent to
him, but he adds that Tonerdumping did
not purchase the cartridge from Static
Control directly but from two different
remanufacturer companies, one of which
said the cartridge was from Static Control.
Mr. Orth emphasizes that Tonerdumping
Aster explains it has The firm’s statement reads in its entirety:
is currently working with Ninestar to
been working to meet establish the G&G brand in Germany, On 10 February 2017, the
the REACH and that part of this effort includes European Union published
regulation. The quality control and following EU Regulation (EU) 2017/227 to
regulations. DecaBDE plastic will be include decaBDE stating that
company says third-
forbidden after March 2019, he says, “the substance decaBDE shall
party testing shows but his suppliers including “Ninestar and be subject to a limit of 0,1 % (by
its new product Aster are well prepared for this.” He weight) for its use in the
samples meet this says he was misquoted by Digital production of or placing the
Imaging and never said that the reason market in another substance as
standard. why these manufacturers are changing a constituent, a mixture, or an
their plastic had anything to do with article or any part thereof after 2
Digital Imaging’s report. “The truth,” he March 2019.”
says, “is that our major toner cartridge
Since that time, and as a
suppliers changed the plastic a few
certified REACH Compliant
months ago and have taken steps to
Company, Aster Graphics has
ensure that no plastic part will exceed
worked both internally and with
the prescribed limits in the future.” Mr.
its raw material suppliers to
Orth adds, “As the most important
meet this standard. Very
measure, our largest supplier has
recently, Aster Graphics has
indicated and demonstrated that the
received positive third-party test
change to unpolluted plastic took place
results confirming that new
months ago. We have already received
product samples have met the
RoHs and REACH tests from the first
stringent 0,1 % (by weight)
toner cartridges that can prove this.
standard. Aster Graphics will be
These tests were made by an
supplying these test results to
independent organization and not by the
its customers and all future
manufacturers themselves.”
shipments of products will utilize
the new plastic formulations. more stringent regulations on decaBDE

could result in less use of
In our work to meet this
remanufactured plastics in products. The
standard, Aster determined that
group warns that if regulations are
the decaBDE levels in our
lowered still further to 10 mg/kg, which
products were coming from the
has been proposed, “Recycling plastics
Steve Weedon, recycled plastic content in raw
from WEEE or ELVs in Europe will come
materials. It is well known that
director and to an end: producing recycled plastics
this new standard has been
corporate strategist challenging for the electrical and containing less than 10 mg/kg of
decaBDE is not technically feasible at
for Print-Rite, was electronic equipment (WEEE)
industrial scale, even for the best
nonplussed about recycling industry in Europe and
performing operators with whom EuRIC
its future, as noted in the
the prospect of Position of the European
is working. This would effectively halt
testing. Recycling Industries’ companies which invested heavily in the
development of innovative sorting and
Confederation (EuRIC),
treatment processes from recycling
https://www.mgg-
plastics, while bringing no added benefit
recycling.com/wp-
to the protection of human health or the
content/uploads/EuRIC_Recast
environment.”
_POP-
Regulation_Position_June2018. Print-Rite Statement
pdf.
Print-Rite was not implicated in any of
Aster Graphics has always Digital Imaging’s articles about decaBDE
maintained high environmental or in the ETIRA announcement.
and social sustainability However, because the company is a
standards. We are pleased to major maker of new-build toner
announce that in December cartridges, we thought we’d reach out to
2018 we received the Print-Rite to see what the company could
prestigious Nordic Swan license say about decaBDE levels in its
approval, Nordic Ecolabel cartridges and whether Print-Rite was at
license No. 3008 0052 for our all worried that its cartridges are on
line of Remanufactured OEM ETIRA’s list for future testing.
Toner Cartridges. For many
years Aster Graphics has also
held the following certifications:
CE, RoHS, ISO 14001.
So, as Digital Imaging suggested, it
seems that Aster’s source for the
recycled plastic in cartridge casings was
the problem. Aster did not directly
address whether any of its older Steve Weedon, director and corporate
cartridges had higher decaBDE levels strategist for Print-Rite, was nonplussed
and may have violated any European about the prospect of testing. He stated,
regulations—its emphasis was on the “We comply to REACH and RoHs
fact that it is now in compliance with standards and have test lab results
European laws. report[s] from [a] third-party European
test house as well as from a Chinese
The position statement Aster points to
certified testing house. Print-Rite is also
from EuRIC asserts that the EU’s ever
issue. And it contains a potential

bombshell.
Static’s January 11 statement reads:
In December, Static Control
responded to allegations of an
unauthorized substance being
in a limited number of cartridges
based on an article in the
German publication Digital
Imaging.
certified under qc080000 Standards, Static Control investigated

which means we have accredited internally and sent cartridges
systems to monitor and put into place and components used for
processes that ensure we are certified remanufacturing cartridges to
and our products comply to REACH and LGA, a third-party, independent
RoHs standards.” laboratory based in Germany for
immediate testing. The
Static’s Bombshell
investigation revealed the
On December 21, Static issued a majority of Static Control
statement on what Digital Imaging had cartridges and components
reported about its cartridges containing complied with all applicable
elevated levels of decaBDE. The firm environmental regulations but a
said only “a small number” of cartridges small number of cartridges
were affected and that the majority of its contained a fire-retardant
cartridges “were in compliance with all chemical that is restricted by
applicable environmental regulations.” RoHS.
Static laid the blame for the
LGA also discovered that some
contaminated plastic on a “rogue raw
of the Static Control cartridge
material supplier” and that it has “acted
models previously alleged in the
immediately to remedy this issue in the
original article to contain the
affected cartridge lines” (see “Static
chemical were actually found to
Control Says It Has Resolved
comply with the regulations,
Contaminated Plastic Issue”).
contradicting the report
We reached out to both Static Control supplied. The inconsistent test
and Ninestar, which is Static’s parent results further fueled Static
company and manufactures its new-build Control’s desire to investigate
toner cartridges, following Digital this issue thoroughly. The issue
Imaging’s January 4 report to see if they relates to using recycled
could provide more information on what plastics. The chemical is
their testing of their cartridges showed, specifically used to aid the use
how much of their product line was of recycled plastics.
affected, and similar questions. Ninestar
Static Control began an audit of
did not comment. While we did not
all plastics in our product line,
receive a reply to our questions from
both for cartridges and
Static Control, about a week after we
components to ensure either
sent our questions, the company issued
new plastics were used or the
a new public statement on the decaBDE
recycled product was free of the scope of the problem, brought its product
If, as Static Control flame-retardant chemical. line in compliance with RoHS and REACH
claims, elevated regulations, and has been selling only
In addition, we tested offerings
levels of decaBDE from a broad selection of the products that comply with regulations on
levels of decaBDE since its December 21
are rampant industry with both cartridges and
announcement. But the firm is also calling
throughout the components, including some of
into question whether elevated decaBDE
our competitors. The fire-
industry, including retardant chemical was found in levels are only a problem with new-build
in new-builds, the vast majority of the industry toner cartridges. If, as Static Control
claims, elevated levels of decaBDE are
remans, and samples tested and in all of the
rampant throughout the industry, including
competitor cartridges and
components, the in new-builds, remans, and components,
components submitted to our
problem is far laboratory. These results indicate
the problem is far bigger than it seemed
bigger than it last fall. And, as noted above, Static is far
that the fire retardant’s presence
from the only party commissioning testing.
seemed last fall. is endemic in the industry and
affects compatible cartridges, Who Is in the Catbird Seat?
remanufactured cartridges, and
Originally, we thought that the decaBDE
components.
issue, driven as it was largely by
We have discussed the remanufacturing industry groups, had the
implications of the testing with potential to help remanufacturers in
ETIRA and fully expect to provide Europe win back some share from new-
more information in the coming build makers, especially in the short
weeks. term. But, we also thought this issue was
Since our December too big for new-build makers to ignore
announcement, Static Control’s and that the bigger companies in the
European cartridge offering has industry would work quickly to bring their
been free of the fire-retardant lines into compliance.
chemical. Since our audit, we can Now, however, with Static indicating it is
confirm that all Static Control a problem that affects the aftermarket as
components and cartridges sold a whole, it appears that more aftermarket
at this time in Europe comply with supplies firms than originally thought may
RoHS and REACH be scrambling to bring their lines into
requirements. compliance. It poses a real dilemma for
As always, Static Control remains resellers in choosing what to offer. And it
diligent in complying with all is alarming to customers who are only
applicable environmental now learning that their aftermarket toner
regulations around the world and cartridges may contain elevated levels of
will continue to take all necessary a toxic substance.
steps to remain RoHS and While we are eager to see what happens
REACH compliant. next with all the testing, we are equally
Static’s aim here appears to be twofold. It interested to see what happens in regard
is once again trying to reassure customers to enforcement of European
that it acted immediately when it learned environmental regulations. As far as we
of the elevated decaBDE levels in a pair know, authorities have not acted on the
of its cartridge models, commissioned its decaBDE issue. Enforcement is the
own testing with LGA to determine the responsibility of the EU’s various
As the decaBDE scandal grows, the big question is who will be left perched
in the catbird seat?
member states and therefore varies from levels, that is good news for
country to country. It is unclear to us remanufacturers, but it is also a good
what might make authorities act upon the message for OEMs and one they will
As the issue of decaBDE issue and what that leverage. But, if, as Static suggests, a
decaBDE in enforcement might look like in practice. broader swath of the aftermarket industry is
However, we noticed that Chemical implicated, including compatible cartridge
aftermarket toner Inspection and Regulation Service makers, remanufacturers, and component
cartridges continues (CIRS) has published a table of makers alike, expect OEMs to take that
to implicate more administrative and criminal penalties for message and run with it.
violating provisions of the REACH
companies and There will always be customers who prefer
regulation. In Germany, for example,
industry players aftermarket cartridges due to their lower
administrative penalties include fines of up
price points, and while by and large that
point fingers at each to €100,000. Criminal penalties, however, won’t change as a result of the decaBDE
other, there is a real in Germany for REACH violations are issue, some customers could be turned off
stiffer and include fines of up to €1 million
chance that … the from the category. Instead of
and up to five years of prison. remanufacturers scooping up some share
reputation of the
As the issue of decaBDE in aftermarket from new-build makers, it is possible we
aftermarket industry toner cartridges continues to implicate may see OEMs take a little bit of share
as a whole in Europe more companies and industry players point away from both.
will be damaged. fingers at each other, there is a real chance [Editor’s note: Actionable Intelligence has
that there will be no winners in the ongoing not played any role in submitting any
battle between new-build cartridges makers company’s toner cartridges for testing. Our
and remanufacturers, only losers, and that aim is to report on details of testing as they
the reputation of the aftermarket industry as
become available in industry publications
a whole in Europe will be damaged. That
and company press releases. Our writing
leaves OEMs perched in the catbird seat. If on the topic appears exclusively on
in the end it appears that only new-build www.Action-Intell.com and not in any other
toner cartridges had elevated decaBDE industry publications.]
About Actionable Intelligence

Actionable Intelligence is the leading source for news, analysis, and research on the digital printer and MFP
industry and the original and third-party consumables business. Actionable Intelligence provides clients with
customized research and consulting, as well as up-to-date news and strategic analysis on Action-Intell.com,
the industry’s leading destination site visited by tens of thousands of printer and supplies executives
worldwide. Global printer OEMs, third-party supplies vendors, distributors, resellers, and a diverse mix of
other companies rely on Actionable Intelligence to deliver timely and accurate information about the trends
shaping the printer hardware and supplies markets. To learn more about Actionable Intelligence, visit
www.action-intell.com.
6/6/2019 Digital-Imaging - TOP-THEMEN Von chinesischen Betrügern und deutschen Bauernopfern,
Print
photo
Hinweis: Wir verwenden auf unseren Internetseiten Cookies und
Google-Analytics.
China cartridges obviously massively contaminated with pollutants
From Chinese fraudsters and German farmers victims

New tests by the ETIRA show that Chinese Newbuilt Cartridges (NBCs) are burdened to a far greater extent
with the banned toxic flame retardant decabromodiphenyl ether (DecaBDE) than previously thought. This is in
addition to the fact that so far eight out of nine tested cartridges were heavily loaded, also the high
specialization in the Chinese hardcopy industry: So insiders believe that a large part of the housing for Chinese
NBC from a single supplier, Huiwei (not confused with the smartphone maker Huawei), stems. More tests that
are about to start soon will bring clarity. Meanwhile, the nervousness among the German online retailers is
clearly increasing: they rightly fear that
Caution, hazardous substances! New tests suggest that Chinese Newbuilt cartridges are far more contaminated with
the banned flame retardant DecaBDE than previously thought. (© Alamy Stock Photo / Jochen Tack).
DecaBDE-loaded China cartridges
Rarely has a report from us released such an avalanche as the Investigative Report "Unscrupulous Chinese Free Rider"
in our September issue DI - Digital Imaging 5-2018 : At that time we first discovered that certain Chinese newbuilt
Toner cartridges (NBC) are loaded with extremely high concentrations of the banned toxic flame retardant
www.di-branche.de/digital-imaging/topthemen/default.asp?top_item=47932&i_item=47932&top_step=15&top_start=1&rb=topthemen&top_rb=to… 1/13
decabromodiphenyl ether (DecaBDE). The substance is assessed by the Federal Environmental Agency as persistent,
bioaccumulating and toxic (PBT) and is suspected of having long-term harmful effects on embryonic development.
This is why it is also on the list of substances of very high concern (SVHC) of the European Chemicals Agency
(ECHA).
In order to be able to accurately assess the health risk posed by users of decaBDE-contaminated China cartridges, we
have asked two well-known environmental toxicologists for their expertise. Once we have their opinion, we will
publish it on the DI homepage.
All major hardcopy tickers around the world had picked up on the topic back then, and there was a heated debate in
the industry. The reports were also closely watched in the Middle Kingdom.Daniel Orth, Managing Partner at
Tonerdumping, said: "We have been talking to our major toner cartridge suppliers for several months to ensure that no
plastic part exceeds the prescribed limits in the future. I know from our most important Asian supplier, Ninestar, that
the topic has been taken very seriously and that we have started to switch production in October. "The issue has also
reached the top floor very quickly at Aster, and we have responded accordingly. "This shows how much you are aware
of the explosive nature of the big Chinese hardcopy manufacturers. But even if Ninestar & Co. change their entire
production within a few weeks, the problem is far from resolved:
Shocking: Eight of Nine Cartridges Heavily Burdened
In the original report in September, it was 'just' about two heavily decaBDE loaded cartridges from Static Control. To
get a more accurate picture of the extent of the scandal, the European Remanufacturer Association ETIRA has
commissioned its own tests in recent weeks. ETIRA purchased various Newbuilt cartridges from Asian manufacturers
via Amazon and had them tested by TÜV Rheinland / LGA.
The results are shocking: Four of the Newbuilt cartridges tested contained four DecaBDEs in extremely high
concentrations - between 2,000 and 17,000 mg / kg (!). Specifically affected are the following Newbuilt toner
cartridges:
Brand Bubprint (compatible with HP17A), sold through the Amazon dealer Druckerpatronen Express
(Germany)
Brand Prestige Print (compatible with HP17A), sold through Amazon dealer J & H Greentech and Trading
Ltd. (UK)
Koala brand (compatible with HP26X), sold through the Amazon dealer Lucky Suppliers Handels GmbH
(Germany)
Brand Yellow Yeti (compatible with HP26X), sold through the Amazon dealer Simple Printing Ltd. (UK)
Which manufacturers have produced the loaded cartridges of more or less exotic brands, the ETIRA could not tell us.
One did not want to reveal which cartridge was heavily loaded - except that the four cartridges from Bubprint,
Prestige Print, Koala and Yellow Yeti had high decaBDE concentrations of 2,000 to 17,000 mg / kg. ETIRA
Secretary-General, Vincent van Dijk, said that his main concern when choosing test cartridges was that they are
products that every consumer can easily purchase online. He had therefore specifically targeted cartridges that were
prominently listed on Amazon. Of course, it would have been desirable to directly test the cartridges of the major
Chinese manufacturers Ninestar, Print-Rite and Aster.
Wenn es um den Profit geht, werden europäische Gesetze von chinesischen

Unternehmen schon mal ignoriert – selbst wenn die Gesundheit der Verbraucher
gefährdet ist. (© Fotolia/ra-2 Studio).
Van Dijk was also shocked by the new results: "Our tests give cause for genuine
concern. They show that in the case of DecaBDE we are not dealing with
individual cases but with a systemic problem of Asian Newbuilt cartridges
containing extremely high concentrations of a dangerous substance. Many Asian
manufacturers even claim that their cartridges are REACH and RoHS compliant
- but obviously they are not. We at ETIRA therefore call on the relevant EU and
national authorities to remove the contaminated cartridges from the market as soon as possible! "
And the 'DecaBDE Oscar' goes to - Static Control ...
In addition to the five cartridges now being tested by the ETIRA and the two Static Control cartridges already
analyzed in September, another cartridge was tested in November: it was an HP 412X from Tonerdumping. The
customer was the same Remanufacturer who had already tested the two Static Control cartridges and then leaked the
results with confidence. The cartouche of toner dumping was heavily contaminated as well: The laboratory of TÜV
Rheinland / LGA measured a decaBDE value of 14,000 mg / kg while the HP reference cartridge was clean.
As Daniel Orth told us on inquiry, the loaded toner dumping cartridge is undoubtedly a Static Control cartridge. By
the way, toner dumping was not bought directly from a Chinese company but from a well-known toner recycler from
Germany. Static Control is now leading the declamable 'DecaBDE hit list' with three contaminated cartridges
confidently ...
Welcome to 'DecaBDE-Club': Aster
Last but not least, since June we have had the analyzes of a ninth tested cartridge: These too come from our
anonymous source. Since no HP cartridge was analyzed as a reference for this test and the cartridge was not intended
for the European market, we had kept the name of the manufacturer under wraps so far. We are moving away from
this because the analyzes by TÜV Rheinland / LGA are trustworthy even without negative control. It is an HP 18A
laser cartridge (black) from Aster. Specifically, it was purchased in Moscow in May and tested in June. Also with this
Aster cartridge a high DecaBDE load of 5,600 mg / kg was measured.
The HP 18A is almost identical to the HP 17A and is used with the HP LaserJet Pro M104A and M104W. These
printers are sold in Eastern Europe, not in this country. From a formal legal point of view, this cartouche may not be
objectionable because it was not intended for the European market - but in the moral sense it makes no difference
whether I poison Europeans, Russians or Africans ...
Thus, eight out of nine China cartridges tested to date contain high concentration by DecaBDE - that's a quota of just
under 90%. And it is a tangible scandal: If it still had a proof that we are dealing here not with a punctual but a
nationwide problem, then this is at the latest provided with the new results of the ETIRA test series.
Blick auf das Huiwei-Firmengebäude in Zhuhai: Links im Hintergrund – nur ca. 400 Meter entfernt – ist bereits das
erste Gebäude der neuen Ninestar-Fabrik zu sehen.
Viele belastete Kartuschen – wenige Zulieferer
In addition to the high hit rate, there are further, strong indications that Chinese NBC are burdened on a broad basis
with DecaBDE. Our research has shown that the variety of suppliers in the Chinese hardcopy industry is not all that
far off: Both at the level of the manufacturer of finished cartridges and the suppliers, there has been a strong
consolidation in recent years. Insiders believe that much of the case for Chinese NBC comes from a single supplier:
the Huiwei Corp. based in Zhuhai. Volker Kappius, Managing Director of Delacamp and spokesman for the network
of German Cartridge Remanufacturers DKWU, has closely monitored developments in the Chinese hardcopy industry
in recent years. Asked about the DecaBDE topic, Mr. Kappius explains It is estimated that 60-80% of all Huiwei
Chinese Newbuilt Toner Cartridge body parts are produced. In addition to the numbers described, Kappius gives
another indication: "Look at who raised a huge production right next to the new, modern Ninestar factory in Zhuhai
two to three years ago: Huiwei ..."
To avoid misunderstandings here, there is no evidence to date that Huiwei has supplied the casings of the loaded
cartridges. But it is quite likely - given the high market shares of the Chinese company in this segment - that Huiwei's
plastic parts were also installed in the loaded cartridges. And that in turn would be a clear indication that we are most
likely dealing with a surface problem.
Mitgefangen - mitgehangen: The big German online retailers are rightly confused, because as a distributor of loaded
China cartridges they are the first in the liability. (© Fotolia / bogdanvija)
Mistrust of Chinese suppliers is growing
The fact that the dealers of China cartridges are very insecure in view of this development - especially the large online
players on Amazon & Co. - is not surprising: rightly feared that they have to hold out as a distributor of the cartridges
head and in the end of their Chinese Suppliers are left in the DecaBDE rain. We know from several conversations that
our December 17 report has compounded the nervousness of many online retailers: they immediately went into crisis
mode, and the telephone wires to the Asian suppliers have been glowing after the release. The Chinese have answered
the questions of their German distribution partners about the ingredients of the cartridges in their own way: with long
documents on alleged REACH and RoHS compliance of their products. But paper is known to be patient. "If only one
person in the entire supply chain - from the plastic granulate supplier to the finished cartridge manufacturer - lies, then
such a declaration of conformity is not worth a damn," complains a large trader, who does not want to be named.
Another person expresses his growing mistrust: "It will work as usual: The Chinese will continue as before. And we
traders who imported and sold the cartridges are the pawn victims. "So he also considers having his own tests done to
be on the safe side. "If only one person in the entire supply chain - from the plastic granulate supplier to the finished
cartridge manufacturer - lies, then such a declaration of conformity is not worth a damn," complains a large trader,
who does not want to be named. Another person expresses his growing mistrust: "It will work as usual: The Chinese
will continue as before. And we traders who imported and sold the cartridges are the pawn victims. "So he also
considers having his own tests done to be on the safe side. "If only one person in the entire supply chain - from the
plastic granulate supplier to the finished cartridge manufacturer - lies, then such a declaration of conformity is not
worth a damn," complains a large trader, who does not want to be named. Another person expresses his growing
mistrust: "It will work as usual: The Chinese will continue as before. And we traders who imported and sold the
cartridges are the pawn victims. "So he also considers having his own tests done to be on the safe side. The Chinese
will continue as before. And we traders who imported and sold the cartridges are the pawn victims. "So he also
considers having his own tests done to be on the safe side. The Chinese will continue as before. And we traders who
imported and sold the cartridges are the pawn victims. "So he also considers having his own tests done to be on the
safe side.
Further tests are being launched by WTA and a second German remanufacturer. Both companies are not ETIRA
members and want to create facts themselves - as well as strong arguments for their sales team. "Which dealer would
like to sell its customers heavily contaminated cartridges?" Is the rhetorical question from WTA marketing director,
Thomas Lentes. Enlightenment is needed - and you'll be happy to face this task in Suhl. How gladly, it turns out that
the Thuringian hard copy specialist on December 21 through various German online retailer has just twelve Newbuilt
cartridges of the major Chinese manufacturers have shopping. As soon as the cartridges are available, they
immediately move to the now decaBDE-approved testing laboratory of TÜV Rheinland / LGA.
Riesen-Chance für die europäische Reman-Industrie
Of course, as soon as they become available, we will publish the new results in a timely manner and place them in the
overall context. In addition, we are in discussion with colleagues from the high-reach public media, so that they pick
up on the topic also: The high burden of tens of thousands, possibly hundreds of thousands of China cartridges with
banned, toxic substances is no longer an issue only for the hardcopy industry: Here It is about the endangerment of
millions of European consumers who are exposed to unknowingly dangerous pollutants. Therefore, we call on the
German and EU authorities to finally apply consistent laws and to stop the import of Asian Newbuilt cartridges into
Europe until all providers have provided evidence, that their products are in fact 'clean' and legally compliant. That's
the least they owe their citizens!
We firmly believe that this scandal is a real chance for the European Reman industry to regain ground against the
Asians. Not because we are against global competition, but because we are against this nasty form of competitive
distortion. To grossly ignore laws and endanger human health is not a trivial offense. Here, we share one-on-one the
view of our US colleagues from 'Actionable Intelligence,' who wrote in their December 18 report: "The problem of
banned substances in Newbuilt cartridges is a huge issue - and it's there for OEMs as well Also, the remanufacturers a
real chance to displace many Newbuilt cartridges from the market. (...) The DecaBDE scandal seems to have the
potentialho
www.di-branche.de/digital-imaging/topthemen/default.asp?top_item=47932&i_item=47932&top_step=15&top_start=1&rb=topthemen&top_rb=t… 10/13
Fakten und Mythen
Das gesundheitsschädliche Flammschutzmittel DecaBDE wurde in den letzten Jahren aus immer mehr
Produktkategorien verbannt. Nach dem 2. März 2019 darf die Substanz laut REACH-Verordnung in Europa
grundsätzlich nicht mehr hergestellt oder in Verkehr gebracht werden. In Elektro- und Elektronikgeräten ist
DecaBDE schon seit dem 1. Juli 2008 europaweit verboten. Da Druckerkartuschen mit Mikrochip in diese
Produktkategorie fallen, dürfen diese schon seit mehr als zehn Jahren kein DecaBDE mehr enthalten. So lautet die
unmissverständliche Einschätzung des Umweltbundesamtes (UBA), und das ist auch die einhellige Meinung der
von uns befragten Experten auf dem Gebiet der Abfallentsorgung.
Hier das Statement des Umweltbundesamtes im O-Ton: „Im Falle der Tonerkartuschen ist zunächst zu prüfen, ob
Sie unter den Anwendungsbereich der Elektrostoff-Verordnung bzw. RoHS-Richtlinie 2011/65/EU fallen. Diese gilt
nur für Elektro- und Elektronikgeräte. Insofern sind Tonerkartuschen mit einem Elektronikanteil, z.B. einem Chip,
vom Anwendungsbereich erfasst. Für diese ist der Einsatz von DecaBDE seit dem 1. Juli 2008 verboten.“
Fälschlicherweise wird von einzelnen betroffenen Anbietern in ihrem Blog suggeriert, belastete Kartuschen dürften
noch bis zum 1. März 2019 in Verkehr gebracht werden, selbst wenn sie DecaBDE-Konzentrationen > 0,1 %
enthalten. Erst nach dem 2. März 2019 sei die Substanz dann in der EU nicht mehr zulässig. Das ist falsch und
irreführend. Tatsächlich liegt der Stichtag für ein generelles DecaBDE-Verbot in Elektro- und Elektronikgeräten
nämlich schon etwas länger zurück – genau zehn Jahre und sieben Monate…
Chinakartuschen-Schadstoff-Statistik für Anfänger
Wenn man von 400 Mio. jährlich verkauften Tonermodulen weltweit ausgeht, dann entfallen davon 5–10 % auf den
deutschen Markt – also 30 Mio. Kartuschen. Jede zweite davon ist eine HP/Canon-Kartusche, das macht 15 Mio.
Stück. Konservativ geschätzt haben China-Newbuilts hierzulande einen Marktanteil von 20–30 %. Damit kommen
wir auf 3,8 Mio. China-Kartuschen für HP-Laserdrucker, die in Deutschland pro Jahr verkauft werden.
Sollten die bisherigen Analysen repräsentativ für den Gesamtmarkt sein – und es gibt keinerlei Evidenz, die
dagegen spricht – dann wären knapp 90 % aller Newbuilts aus dem Reich der Mitte mit DeacBDE kontaminiert.
Das hieße, dass in Deutschland – hochgerechnet auf das Gesamtjahr 2018 – 3,4 Mio. belastete Kartuschen verkauft
wurden. Selbst wenn man die bisherigen Tests für nicht repräsentativ hält und willkürlich die Annahme trifft, „nur“
jede dritte China-Kartusche sei belastet, käme man auf 1,3 Mio. belastete Kartuschen p.a. Heruntergebrochen
bedeutet das, dass täglich ca. 3.500 DecaBDE-Kartuschen hierzulande gekauft werden. Alleine während Sie diesen
Bericht gelesen haben (15 Minuten), haben statistisch gesehen 35 deutsche Verbraucher eine verseuchte China-
Kartusche in Empfang genommen. Ahnungslose Verbraucher, die nichts wissen von den gefährlichen Inhaltsstoffen
ihrer günstigen Tonerkartusche. Liebe Behörden: Wacht endlich auf und schützt die Gesundheit der deutschen
Verbraucher!
Böser Rohstofflieferant…
Am 21. Dezember verbreitete Static Control über den ‚Recycler‘ und andere Kanäle ein Statement zum DecaBDE-
Skandal. Demnach hat man die eigenen Kartuschen in den letzten Wochen analysiert und die Mehrzahl würde die
geltenden Umweltvorschriften erfüllen. Bei einer geringen Anzahl von Kartuschen habe man eine verbotene
Substanz in den Kunststoffteilen gefunden. Der kontaminierte Kunststoff würde von einem „schurkischen
Rohstofflieferanten“ stammen. Man habe sofort reagiert, um sicherzustellen, dass alle Kartuschen künftig
rechtskonform sind.
Wenn man bei Static Control denkt, mit diesem wachsweichen Statement, das noch nicht einmal die Substanz
benennt, um die es geht, sei der Fall behoben, dann täuscht man sich gewaltig. Transparenz sieht ganz anders aus,
und die Erklärung wirft weit mehr Fragen auf, als sie beantwortet: Wer war der „schurkische Rohstofflieferant“?
Wie viele Kartuschen von Static Control sind insgesamt betroffen? Welche anderen Hardcopy-Hersteller beziehen
ihre Kunststoffteile bei dem „schurkischen“ Vorlieferanten? Und vor allem: Wie viele DecaBDE-belastete
Kartuschen hat Static Control in den letzten Monaten bereits nach Europa verkauft? Welche Maßnahmen will man
treffen, um die kontaminierten Kartuschen schnellstmöglich wieder vom Markt zu bekommen? Wie sieht es mit
Rückrufaktionen aus? Wird Static Control seine europäischen Handelspartner, die ebenso getäuscht wurden wie die
ahnungslosen Endkunden, finanziell für den Schaden entschädigen? Last but not least: Was geschieht mit den
belasteten Kartuschen, die die Händler noch auf Lager haben: Bekommen sie dafür einen finanziellen Ausgleich…?
Übrigens geht es bei dem Skandal längst nicht nur um europäische Umweltvorschriften, wie das Statement von
Static Control suggeriert. Es handelt sich bei DecaBDE um eine in europäischen Elektronikgeräten seit 2008
verbotene, toxische Substanz, die im Verdacht steht, sich langfristig schädlich auf die Embryonalentwicklung
auszuwirken. Das ist ein ziemlich eklatanter Unterschied!
State of California S
Secretary of State E-U48419
Statement of Information
(Domestic Stock and Agricultural Cooperative Corporations)
FILED
FEES (Filing and Disclosure): $25.00.
If this is an amendment, see instructions. In the office of the Secretary of
IMPORTANT - READ INSTRUCTIONS BEFORE COMPLETING THIS FORM State of the State of California
1. CORPORATE NAME
ASTER GRAPHICS, INC. Oct - 03 2013
This Space For Filing Use Only

2. CALIFORNIA CORPORATE NUMBER C3353544
3. If there have been any changes to the information contained in the last Statement of Information filed with the California Secretary of
State, or no statement of information has been previously filed, this form must be completed in its entirety.
If there has been no change in any of the information contained in the last Statement of Information filed with the California Secretary of State,
check the box and proceed to Item 17.
Complete Addresses for the Following (Do not abbreviate the name of the city. Items 4 and 5 cannot be P.O. Boxes.)
4. STREET ADDRESS OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICE CITY STATE ZIP CODE
540 S. MELROSE STREET PLACENTIA CA 92870
5. STREET ADDRESS OF PRINCIPAL BUSINESS OFFICE IN CALIFORNIA, IF ANY CITY STATE ZIP CODE
6. MAILING ADDRESS OF CORPORATION, IF DIFFERENT THAN ITEM 4 CITY STATE ZIP CODE
Names and Complete Addresses of the Following Officers (The corporation must list these three officers. A comparable title for the specific officer may
be added; however, the preprinted titles on this form must not be altered.)
7. CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER/ ADDRESS CITY STATE ZIP CODE
SHIHE LUO 540 S. MELROSE STREET PLACENTIA CA 92870
8. SECRETARY ADDRESS CITY STATE ZIP CODE
9. CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER/ ADDRESS CITY STATE ZIP CODE
SHAOFANG WENG 540 S. MELROSE STREET PLACENTIA CA 92870
Names and Complete Addresses of All Directors, Including Directors Who Are Also Officers (The corporation must have at least one director.
Attach additional pages, if necessary.)
10. NAME ADDRESS CITY STATE ZIP CODE

13. NUMBER OF VACANCIES ON THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS, IF ANY:
Agent for Service of Process If the agent is an individual, the agent must reside in California and Item 15 must be completed with a California street
address, a P.O.Box
14. NAME OF AGENT FOR SERVICE OF PROCESS
YE YIN
15. STREET ADDRESS OF AGENT FOR SERVICE OF PROCESS IN CALIFORNIA, IF AN INDIVIDUAL CITY STATE ZIP CODE
115 SCHUBERT CT IRVINE CA 92617
Type of Business
16. DESCRIBE THE TYPE OF BUSINESS OF THE CORPORATION
WHOLESALES OF CARTRIDGE
17. BY SUBMITTING THIS STATEMENT OF INFORMATION TO THE CALIFORNIA SECRETARY OF STATE, THE CORPORATION CERTIFIES THE INFORMATION
CONTAINED HEREIN, INCLUDING ANY ATTACHMENTS, IS TRUE AND CORRECT.
10/03/2013 DANA CHENG AP STAFF ACCOUNTANT
DATE TYPE/PRINT NAME OF PERSON COMPLETING FORM TITLE SIGNATURE
SI-200 (REV 01/2012) APPROVED BY SECRETARY OF STATE

Multiple seller accounts violation:
Summary:
Aster Graphics Inc.1 sells toner/ink on the Amazon platform using many “Black Hat” tactics. This scheme
includes the following violations of Amazon TOS:
1. Multiple seller accounts - Aster Graphics Inc. owns and operates multi seller accounts
including:
Cool Toner
https://www.amazon.com/stores/node/5737113011
Sold by Amazon sellers: Toner H Party
Sample Asin’s: B07JZYYN8Z, B07HMHG1KH, B00EYH39DA, B0792CKDB5, B07H8TSRH8
Arcon
Sold By Amazon sellers: Arcon
sample Asin’s: B07GD5H5YZ, B07GD78NM2, B07H888K1Z, B07FFHLR75, B07HFTQWDN
True Image
Sold by Amazon seller: TRUE IMAGE
Sample Asin’s: B07BZ67M22, B07F8GG4SJ, B07KY5NZ1G, B07CPHNJL9, B06XRD1RL9
Aztech
Sold by Amazon seller: AZ-TECH
Sample Asin’s: B07HR7YG97, B01BVD83VC, B07CML3BG3, B079RB5B9D, B07CMM4WRB
2. Listing manipulation - Aster Graphics Inc. will take an established product with momentum,
sales rank, and reviews, and completely change the listing images and description to that of
a new product.
3. Review manipulation – Products listed by Aster Graphics Inc. have very suspicious review
patterns that signify the use of a “Review Farm”.
Details:
Multiple Selling Accounts
1
http://www.aster-usa.com
Aster
Parent Company Graphics Inc.
Intercon
Aztech Revol Eco Imaging
Corporation Supplies Trading, Inc.
International
Inc.
Corp.
Amazon Brand Aztech True Image Arcon Cool Toner
Amazon Seller AZ-TECH TRUE IMAGE Arcon Toner H Party

Name
On an insider tip – I started researching the relationships between these 4 sellers. Although Aster
Graphics Inc. attempted to conceal the fact that they own and operate 4 seller accounts, a search of
their trademarks2 reveals these links between the 4 seller accounts: (See Attachment: Aster Graphics
Links.jpg – Exhibit A)
Trademark research reveals file dates are exactly the same (or 1 day
apart) and same exact Attorney was used
Trademark Californian
Date Filed for
Name / Brand Corporation Attorney of Record
Trademark
on Amazon Name
Intercon
Arcon International 7/18/2017 Zixuan Zhou
Corp
True Image Revol 7/18/2017 Zixuan Zhou

Trading, Inc.
Cool Toner Eco Imaging 7/10/2017 Zixuan Zhou

Inc.
Aztec Aztech 7/11/2017 Zixuan Zhou

Supplies
1. Cool Toner + Aztech filed trademarks a day apart (July 10 + 11, 2017)
2. then 1 week later Arcon + True Image filed trademarks on the exact same day (July 18, 2017).
2
https://www.uspto.gov/trademark (search: Arcon, True Image, Cool Toner, Aztec)
3. They all used the exact same Attorney: ZIXUAN ZHOU
4. All the addresses used to file trademarks are not actual business addresses but instead they are
UPS Store Box Offices all located within 6 miles of each other.
Using the company names that own the trademarks, a search of California Corporation3 records reveals:
(See Attachment: Aster Graphics Links.jpg – Exhibit B)
Employee
2nd Date 3rd Date
California Name who
Brand on 1st Date Update Update
Corporation filed/signed
Amazon Incorporated Corporate Corporate
Name Corporate
Records Records
records
Intercon
Arcon International 11/9/2012 11/28/2017 8/8/2018 Claire Huang
Corp
True Image Revol 11/9/2012 11/28/2017 1/11/2019 Claire Huang

Trading, Inc.
Cool Toner Eco Imaging 2/22/2012 11/28/2017 1/11/2019 Claire Huang

Inc.
Aster
Parent
Graphics, 2/28/2011 10/3/2013 3/15/2018 Claire Huang
Company
Inc.
Aztech AZTECH Never Filed
1. Intercon International Corp. (Acron) + Revol Trading, Inc (True Image) both incorporated the
exact same day (11/9/2012)
2. Intercon International Corp. (Acron) + Revol Trading, Inc (True Image) + Eco Imaging Inc. (Cool
Toners) all updated their California Corporation records on the exact same day (11/28/2017)
and the same person (Claire Huang) with the same title (Accountant) filed all 3 updates. This was
the 2nd time Acron + True Image filed on same exact date
3. Revol Trading, Inc (True Image) + Eco Imaging Inc. (Cool Toners) updated their corporate records
exact same day (1/11/2019) and the same person (Claire Huang) with the same title
(Accountant) filed both updates. This was the 2nd time True Image + Cool Toners filed on same
exact date.
4. Parent Company Aster Graphics Inc. + Intercon International Corp. (Acron) + Revol Trading, Inc
(True Image) + Eco Imaging Inc. (Cool Toners) all used the same employee (Claire Huang) with
same title (Accountant) to file their California Corporation records
3
https://businesssearch.sos.ca.gov/ (Search: Intercon International Corp, Revol Trading, Inc., Eco
Imaging Inc., Aster Graphics, Inc.)
5. Intercon International Corp. (Acron) used the same exact address as parent company Aster
Graphics Inc. for the corporation records. (540 + 544 S. Melrose St., Placentia, CA 92870)(540 +
544 share the same building)
FBM orders placed on Amazon from all 4 sellers/brands
1. all shipped from the same address - 540 Melrose St. Placentia, CA 92870
2. This address is the same as Aster Graphics Inc. address
3. All toner boxes were the green design Aster Graphics boxes
Listing manipulation
Aster Graphics Inc. will take an established product with momentum, sales rank, and reviews, and
completely change the listing images and description to that of a new product. The reviews for the old
product will now deceptively appear to Amazon customers as reviews for the new product. In fact, that
is one way to know that a listing has been changed, because older reviews will reference the brand of
toner they are reviewing which will be completely different than the brand the listing is currently selling.
For Example:
ASIN: B07JKDPV58 is currently selling a compatible “HP” brand toner (HP 202X) however older reviews
for this listing reference “Canon” brand toner.
Another way to tell that a listing changed the item it was selling, is by checking the “Customer questions
& Answers” section. Many times there will be a question about the older item the listing used to sell.
This is true for the same ASIN referenced above (ASIN: B07JKDPV58). As we saw with the reviews, the
listing is currently selling “HP” brand compatible toner, however Q&A references the same “Canon”
brand as reviewer referenced:
A third way to tell that a listing has changed the item it is selling is by comparing the “Date First
Available” to the OEM Brand “Date First Available”. In the case of this same ASIN (ASIN: B07JKDPV58),
the date listed is June 17, 2016. However, if you look at the OEM HP brand of the same toner (HP 202X
Asin: B074KRP89L) the date listed is September 5, 2017. It is impossible for Arcon be to selling
compatible HP 202X in June 2016 when the OEM HP 202X didn’t even exist until September 2017.
Here is a partial list I was able to assemble of ASIN’s that have switch products. I assume Amazon has
records of the title, description, and image changes these ASIN underwent. If Amazon can compare
original title to current one for these ASIN, I am sure that it will confirm an item change.
ASIN that have item switch

Cool Toner Aztech True Image Arcon
B07H8TSRH8 B006C0X6YO B07BZ67M22 B00V9KZYPG
B00HY3XUP8 B07D9BKQ6T B07DZYDQ5R B07GD5H5YZ
B07H8585Q5 B07CML3BG3 B07HHWXVWS B07FFHLR75
B00IIYLCGQ B07H9NYRKS B06XRD1RL9 B00V9L00LI
B01H6FI1DE B07DHD5F31 B079NNTFHY B07GD78NM2
B001GCETBW B07CPHNJL9 B07GD7XBF8
B0038YKLFE B07F24D9SS B07BZBKG4P
B07DHD5F31 B07F63KQWG B07GD6N7GF
B07HR7YG97 B076CM9P2R B07BGZT4QW
B01ANMMUKM B07BKMS7T1 B07GDBRT6P
B01ANMNMYK B07FT625SS B07CRZ6Q4N
B01B2F0UUG B0037BYL5O B07DJZ2CMT
B005SASZGS B07DBVWVW2
B07DCQ14L4
B07DBW6QNJ
B07CV74TPW
Review manipulation
The reviews for many of their ASIN’s are very suspicious. Here are some patterns that emerged:
1. They often have clusters of reviews in short time periods that are outliers to the rest of reviews
on the ASIN
2. Lots of repetitive phrases used by “different” reviewers
3. Reviewers with suspicious review patterns. A reviewer will have multi reviews for many
different items on a single day (10+ reviews on a single day), then they won’t have any reviews
for a long period of time (9+ months), then all of sudden have another burst of reviews again on
a single day. This is not normal “real” review behavior, but rather this pattern matches how
“review farms” work. Here is an example of a reviewer with this suspicious pattern:
https://www.amazon.com/gp/profile/amzn1.account.AHERMBOPUELQHRYXYIZN5J674LFA/ref=
cm_cr_getr_d_pdp?ie=UTF8
Conclusion:
Aster Graphics Inc. has violated many of Amazon’s TOS that aim to maintain a marketplace that is safe for buyers
and fair to sellers. They have a pattern of behavior that indicates a broad scheme to manipulate the Amazon
platform, deceive Amazon customers, and create unfair advantages over other sellers that comply with Amazon’s
TOS. This is a serious violation on Amazon’s prohibited seller activities and should result in all the brands/seller
accounts permanent removal from the Amazon platform consistent with Amazon treatment of similar violations.

Anti-SLAPP Motion Filed Against Aster Graphics For Violating The Free Speech Rights of Steven Giannetta

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Anti-SLAPP Motion Filed Against Aster Graphics For Violating The Free Speech Rights of Steven Giannetta

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

1 Mark L.

Javitch (CA SBN 323729)

Special Anti-Slapp Motion CASE NO.: 30-2019-01065193-CU-DF-CJC

5 Department C12, with Reservation Confirmation Number 73062030, Defendant Steven

10 Plaintiff’s claims arise from articles posted on TonerNews.com and Defendant’s

17 Plaintiff cannot carry this burden as a matter of law.

23 DATED: June 10, 2019 By: /s/ Mark L. Javitch .

24 Mark L. Javitch. Javitch (SBN 323729)

28 Attorney for Defendant

Special Anti-Slapp Motion CASE NO.: 30-2019-01065193-CU-DF-CJC

Special Anti-Slapp Motion CASE NO.: 30-2019-01065193-CU-DF-CJC

4 foregoing DEFENDANT’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND SPECIAL MOTION TO STRIKE

5 PURSUANT TO CAL. CIV. PROC. CODE § 425.16; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND

Special Anti-Slapp Motion CASE NO.: 30-2019-01065193-CU-DF-CJC

3 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

Special Anti-Slapp Motion CASE NO.: 30-2019-01065193-CU-DF-CJC

4 II. LEGAL STANDARD…...………………………………………………………………9

5 III. LEGAL ARGUMENT…………………………………………………………………10

6 A. The California Anti-SLAPP Law Applies.……………………….……………10

7 B. Defendant has made the Prima Facie Showing………………….......…………11

8 C. Plaintiff cannot show a probability of prevailing…………………….…......…11

9 1. Plaintiff did not identify any actual statements…………………………….12

10 2. The alleged snippets are not disparaging………………………………..…13

11 i. The first quote is not defamatory…………………………………..14

12 ii. The second quote is not pled in context……………………………16

13 iii. The third quote is not disparaging ………………………………..16

14 3. The quotes are not provably false………………………………………….16

15 4. The second quote is not actionable because it is based on disclosed factual

17 5. The third quote is not actionable because it is based on disclosed factual

19 D. Plaintiff failed to plead inducement ……………………………………….…..18

20 E. Plaintiff failed to plead special damages………………………………………19

21 F. Plaintiff is a limited public figure ……………………………………………..20

22 G. Plaintiff failed to plead actual malice ………………........................................20

23 H. Plaintiff cannot show a probability of prevailing on its Defamation and False

Special Anti-Slapp Motion CASE NO.: 30-2019-01065193-CU-DF-CJC

13 within the protection of California’s Anti-SLAPP Statutes.

19 TonerNews.com based on independent research. He writes about issues of concern in the

Special Anti-Slapp Motion CASE NO.: 30-2019-01065193-CU-DF-CJC

15 offered at around 35% off of the retail price.

Special Anti-Slapp Motion CASE NO.: 30-2019-01065193-CU-DF-CJC

Special Anti-Slapp Motion CASE NO.: 30-2019-01065193-CU-DF-CJC

17 Defendant should be awarded attorney’s fees.

Special Anti-Slapp Motion CASE NO.: 30-2019-01065193-CU-DF-CJC

15 2006) 51 Cal. Rptr. 3d 55, 59 n.4).

16 Thus, Defendant’s alleged statements regarding the safety of Plaintiff’s printer

25 it addresses an “ongoing discussion” in the language interpretation industry, which is itself a

Special Anti-Slapp Motion CASE NO.: 30-2019-01065193-CU-DF-CJC

8 probability of prevailing on that claim. It cannot meet that burden.

9 1. There are no actual statements identified.

Special Anti-Slapp Motion CASE NO.: 30-2019-01065193-CU-DF-CJC

9 ed. 2008) Pleading, § 739, p. 159.))

Special Anti-Slapp Motion CASE NO.: 30-2019-01065193-CU-DF-CJC

2 unit.” It must be read as a whole”) (citation omitted).

25 they are not actionable.

Special Anti-Slapp Motion CASE NO.: 30-2019-01065193-CU-DF-CJC

2 actionable because it is not defamatory.

23 construed as false is not sufficient to support a defamation claim. Id.

Special Anti-Slapp Motion CASE NO.: 30-2019-01065193-CU-DF-CJC

2 remanufactured cartridges. A clone simply means a “copy” or “genetically identical.” 4 This is

8 because it was not pled in context

Special Anti-Slapp Motion CASE NO.: 30-2019-01065193-CU-DF-CJC

2 ¶¶7-8). Lacking is any explanation why the statement is disparaging.

15 because it is Mr. Giannetta’s opinion based on disclosed