Acme Revival Sues Bowers & Wilkins: Accused of Right-to-Repair Noncompliance and Improper Interference With Independent Repair

Denver, CO — Denver-based Acme Revival has filed a lawsuit against B&W Group Ltd. d/b/a Bowers & Wilkins, alleging violations of Colorado’s Consumer Repair Bill of Rights Act and the Colorado Consumer Protection Act, as well as intentional interference with an existing contract and prospective business advantage.

The complaint, filed September 23, 2026, in Denver District Court, concerns Bowers & Wilkins-branded digital electronic equipment presented or proposed for repair by Acme, including headphones, wireless speakers, and soundbars, and Acme Revival’s efforts to obtain replacement parts and assemblies, service documentation, service manuals, schematic diagrams, boardviews, embedded software, firmware and provisioning processes, firmware tools, diagnostic and calibration tools, calibration utilities, proprietary diagnostic software, and related repair materials.

According to the complaint, Acme has received requests from customers seeking repair of Bowers & Wilkins products since January 2026.

The complaint states that, beginning as early as July 28, 2026, Acme made two demands through Bowers & Wilkins’ public-facing website support channels seeking resources needed to repair customers’ Bowers & Wilkins devices.

According to the complaint, Bowers & Wilkins responded by requesting information identifying the product and its serial number, purchase and repair locations, the Acme entity performing the repair, owner authorization, and the asserted right-to-repair law.

The complaint states that on September 16, 2026, Acme responded by supplying the information Bowers & Wilkins had requested in connection with Colorado’s right-to-repair requirements, including the unit’s serial number.

Acme alleges that, despite its cooperation, Bowers & Wilkins refused to provide parts and has not adequately responded to Acme’s demands for repair resources.

The complaint further alleges that Bowers & Wilkins has not made the requested qualifying repair materials available to Acme on fair and reasonable terms and costs or supplied an adequate response resolving Acme’s demands.

According to the complaint, Bowers & Wilkins’ request for additional information did not identify a statutory exemption applicable to any particular requested repair material and did not itself make any repair material available.

Acme alleges that Bowers & Wilkins did not provide a contractor making required parts available to Acme on Bowers & Wilkins’ behalf.

According to the complaint, Bowers & Wilkins, acting for itself and through affiliated sales, manufacturing, software, and service entities, supplies Bowers & Wilkins products for distribution and sale, including sale and use in Colorado.

The complaint alleges that Bowers & Wilkins possesses, uses, controls, provides to authorized repair providers, or can obtain repair materials associated with the products and participates in United States product support, service, warranty, and repair-access functions associated with those products, directly or through agents acting on its behalf.

Acme states that the precise allocation of manufacturing, supply, possession, control, service, and repair-access functions among B&W Group Ltd. d/b/a Bowers & Wilkins and affiliated Bowers & Wilkins entities is primarily or uniquely within Bowers & Wilkins’ possession and knowledge.

The lawsuit also concerns a specific repair engagement involving Bowers & Wilkins PX8 headphones under Acme service request A3322090.

According to the complaint, before Bowers & Wilkins’ September 16, 2026 communication with the customer, the customer had engaged Acme to repair the PX8 headphones, the headphones had been delivered to Acme and remained in Acme’s physical possession, and repair work was underway.

The complaint alleges that Acme and the customer had an existing repair services agreement under which Acme had undertaken work on the customer’s headphones for compensation.

According to the complaint, on September 16, 2026—the same day Acme supplied Bowers & Wilkins with information requested in connection with Acme’s repair-resource inquiry—a Bowers & Wilkins Customer Care representative contacted the customer and asked whether the headphones remained in the customer’s possession.

The customer advised Bowers & Wilkins that the headphones were not currently in the customer’s possession and had been sent to “a third-party repair service, Acme Revival in Denver.”

According to the complaint, after receiving that response, Bowers & Wilkins advised the customer that it had obtained an exception to replace the headphones under warranty even though Bowers & Wilkins stated that it did not believe the issue fell within the scope of the warranty.

The complaint states that Bowers & Wilkins expressly conditioned the courtesy replacement on, among other things, “Documentation confirming that the service request with Acme has been withdrawn.”

According to the complaint, on September 18, 2026, the customer instructed Acme to withdraw service request A3322090, stop all repair work and the manufacturer parts request, and return the headphones.

The complaint states that after the withdrawal, the customer provided Acme with a prepaid shipping label for return of the headphones in connection with the Bowers & Wilkins replacement process. The label directed shipment to United Radio, which Acme alleges, upon information and belief, is an authorized service and repair provider within Bowers & Wilkins’ authorized service network.

Acme alleges that the replacement process therefore resulted in the headphones being removed from Acme’s independent repair engagement and routed into Bowers & Wilkins’ authorized service channel.

According to the complaint, the timing of Bowers & Wilkins’ September 16 outreach—occurring on the same day Acme supplied the requested device-identifying information—supports an inference that the outreach was associated with information supplied during Acme’s repair-resource inquiry.

The complaint states that, regardless of the precise internal means by which Bowers & Wilkins identified or contacted the customer, the customer communication establishes that Bowers & Wilkins acquired actual knowledge of Acme’s existing repair engagement before expressly conditioning the replacement upon its withdrawal.

Acme alleges impropriety based on that express condition in combination with Bowers & Wilkins’ contemporaneous withholding of qualifying repair materials and the resulting diversion of the identified repair transaction into Bowers & Wilkins’ authorized service channel. The complaint states that Acme does not rely on the mere existence of a replacement offer as sufficient to establish improper interference.

Colorado’s Consumer Repair Bill of Rights Act requires manufacturers, for purposes of providing services for covered digital electronic equipment in Colorado, to make qualifying documentation, parts, embedded software, firmware, and tools available to an independent repair provider or owner on fair and reasonable terms and costs.

The complaint alleges that qualifying Bowers & Wilkins products are hardware products that depend, in whole or in part, on digital electronics embedded in or attached to the products to function as intended.

Depending on the model, the products contain or use processors, circuit boards, audio components, wireless communication hardware, batteries, power supplies, charging components, connectors, embedded software, firmware, and other electronic or mechanical components.

Acme alleges that its requested repairs concern electronic, mechanical, software, firmware, or related functionality of the products.

The lawsuit applies its claims under Colorado’s repair statute only to products satisfying the statutory requirement that the equipment was manufactured for the first time and first sold or used in Colorado on or after July 1, 2021.

According to the complaint, Bowers & Wilkins maintains public-facing website support channels through which Acme requested parts and repair information for Bowers & Wilkins-branded headphones.

The complaint also alleges that Bowers & Wilkins conducts or controls support and service functions relevant to the products based on its product-support communications, the documented replacement arrangement, and the return process described in the complaint.

Acme alleges that Bowers & Wilkins possesses, uses, controls, provides within its authorized service network, or can obtain resources relevant to the products’ hardware, software, firmware, digital functionality, diagnostics, maintenance, repair, updating, activation, provisioning, calibration, or restoration.

According to the complaint, an offer to replace a customer’s device does not itself make qualifying repair materials available to an independent repair provider or discharge an otherwise applicable duty under Colorado’s Consumer Repair Bill of Rights Act.

Acme alleges that Bowers & Wilkins’ failure or refusal to provide qualifying repair materials or a meaningful repair-access process remains ongoing.

The complaint alleges that Bowers & Wilkins’ challenged conduct has prevented Acme from accepting, completing, or efficiently performing requested repairs.

Acme alleges that it has lost repair revenue, profits, and business opportunities; incurred wasted diagnostic, intake, research, administrative, follow-up, and communications time; suffered harm to customer relationships and goodwill; and lost present and future repair opportunities.

According to the complaint, the challenged repair-access practices operate through public-facing support channels used by product owners and independent repair providers and are capable of recurring when others seek the same categories of repair resources.

The complaint states that Bowers & Wilkins products continue to be sold, supported, and used, including in Colorado, and that additional product owners therefore are likely to require diagnosis, maintenance, or repair services.

Acme alleges that, to the extent qualifying repair materials are withheld from independent repair providers, the challenged practice restricts independent repair options and competition and channels owners toward manufacturer-controlled authorized repair, service, replacement, or sales alternatives.

The complaint alleges that service request A3322090 illustrates that practice because, after the independent repair engagement was withdrawn, the prepaid return label supplied for the replacement process directed the product to United Radio, which Acme alleges operates within Bowers & Wilkins’ authorized service network.

Acme alleges that the challenged conduct has actual or significant potential public impact upon consumers of the products and repair services, including restricted independent repair choices, diversion of repair opportunities to manufacturer-controlled replacement or service arrangements, and reduced competition for product repairs in Colorado.

The lawsuit seeks declarations concerning which Bowers & Wilkins products or product systems at issue constitute covered digital electronic equipment, whether Bowers & Wilkins qualifies as an original equipment manufacturer or manufacturer under Colorado law with respect to covered products, and Bowers & Wilkins’ obligation to make qualifying repair materials available to Acme on fair and reasonable terms and costs.

Acme also seeks a declaration that requesting and receiving device-identifying and repair-provider information without making qualifying repair materials available does not satisfy an otherwise applicable obligation under Colorado’s Consumer Repair Bill of Rights Act.

The lawsuit further seeks a declaration that offering an owner a replacement device conditioned on withdrawal of an independent repair request does not itself satisfy a covered manufacturer’s obligation to make qualifying repair materials available to an independent repair provider.

Acme also seeks a declaration that a covered manufacturer may not withhold a repair material on the ground that the repair material itself constitutes a trade secret except as permitted by Colorado law.

The complaint includes claims for intentional interference with an existing contract and, in the alternative as applicable, intentional interference with prospective business advantage arising from service request A3322090.

Acme alleges that, after acquiring actual knowledge of Acme’s repair engagement, Bowers & Wilkins intentionally interfered with that agreement by offering the customer an exceptional replacement and expressly conditioning the replacement upon documentation confirming that the service request with Acme had been withdrawn.

According to the complaint, Bowers & Wilkins’ conduct caused the customer to direct termination of the repair engagement, cessation of work and the parts request, and return of the headphones, preventing Acme from completing the repair and obtaining its anticipated economic benefit.

Through the lawsuit, Acme seeks compensatory damages on its intentional-interference claims, including lost net profits and other proven economic losses proximately caused by the alleged interference, without duplicate recovery for the same injury.

The lawsuit also seeks permanent injunctive relief that, if Acme prevails and the court determines the statutory requirements apply, would require Bowers & Wilkins to make qualifying repair materials available to Acme on fair and reasonable terms and costs and establish and maintain a reasonable and functional process through which Acme may request, order, access, and receive those materials.

The requested relief also includes identifying any contractor through which parts or other qualifying repair materials are made available on Bowers & Wilkins’ behalf, maintaining a reasonable and functional communications process for statutory repair-access requests, refraining from substituting manufacturer-controlled replacement arrangements for statutory repair access where Colorado law requires access for an independent repair provider, providing required updates to qualifying documentation, embedded software, firmware, or tools, and taking additional action necessary or proper to implement the court’s declaration of the parties’ respective statutory rights and obligations.

Acme also seeks, upon a finding of liability under the Colorado Consumer Protection Act, the greater of its actual damages including applicable prejudgment interest, $500, or three times its actual damages where bad-faith conduct is established by clear and convincing evidence, together with costs, reasonable attorney fees, applicable interest, and other legal or equitable relief.

The case is Acme Revival, Inc. v. B&W Group Ltd. d/b/a Bowers & Wilkins, Case No. 2026CV33446

The allegations have not been adjudicated, and Bowers & Wilkins will have an opportunity to respond.