Acme Revival files Colorado Right-to-Repair lawsuit against Owl Labs

Denver, CO – Denver-based Acme Revival has filed a lawsuit against Owl Labs, Inc., alleging that Owl Labs violated Colorado’s Consumer Repair Bill of Rights Act and the Colorado Consumer Protection Act by refusing to provide materials needed for independent repair.

The complaint was filed on July 23, 2026, in the District Court for the City and County of Denver. It concerns Owl Labs-branded video-conferencing and collaboration devices, including Meeting Owl devices, Owl Bar devices, Whiteboard Owl devices, Meeting HQ devices, Expansion Mics, and related digital electronic equipment.

According to the complaint, Acme Revival received at least twenty-five repair requests during 2026 from owners seeking repairs for Owl Labs devices, in addition to other requests received before that period. The reported problems included power failures, damaged or nonfunctional cameras, failed microphones or speakers, damaged housings, failed ports or connectors, circuit-board failures, software or firmware faults, wireless-connectivity failures, and other defects requiring replacement parts or technical repair materials.

Acme Revival alleges that it has been unable to complete certain repairs because Owl Labs failed or refused to provide the necessary repair materials.

Those materials allegedly include repair and service manuals, schematics, diagrams, parts, components, assemblies, diagnostic and repair procedures, embedded software, firmware, and tools.

The complaint states that Acme Revival sent written requests seeking access to those materials on fair and reasonable terms. It further alleges that Owl Labs did not provide the requested materials, establish a compliant repair-access process, identify a contractor or other channel through which required parts could be obtained, or offer fair and reasonable terms for obtaining the requested repair materials.

Colorado’s Consumer Repair Bill of Rights Act requires manufacturers of covered digital electronic equipment to make certain repair documentation, parts, embedded software, firmware, and tools available to owners and independent repair providers on fair and reasonable terms. The complaint alleges that Owl Labs’ failure to comply with those requirements constitutes a deceptive trade practice under the Colorado Consumer Protection Act.

Acme Revival also alleges that Owl Labs’ refusal limits independent repair options and forces device owners to purchase replacement devices or use manufacturer-controlled support, warranty, or replacement channels. The complaint further alleges that the conduct may result in unnecessary device disposal, unreasonable delays, and higher repair costs.

According to the complaint, Owl Labs’ alleged refusal is not an isolated private dispute but reflects a general policy or practice of withholding repair materials from independent repair providers. Acme Revival contends that the alleged practice restricts competition in the repair market and affects device owners, independent repair providers, and actual or potential consumers of Owl Labs devices and repair services.

The complaint alleges that Owl Labs’ continued refusal after notice was knowing, willful, intentional, and undertaken in bad faith. Acme Revival claims that it has suffered lost repair revenue, lost profits, wasted diagnostic and intake time, harm to customer relationships, loss of goodwill, lost future repair opportunities, and other business injuries.

Through the lawsuit, Acme Revival seeks declarations concerning the parties’ rights and obligations under Colorado law, including a declaration that Owl Labs must provide covered repair materials on fair and reasonable terms. It also seeks an injunction requiring Owl Labs to establish a reasonable process for ordering, accessing, and receiving those materials, along with actual damages, statutory damages, treble damages for alleged bad-faith conduct, interest, costs, and attorney fees as permitted by law.

The case is Acme Revival, Inc. v. Owl Labs, Inc., Case No. 2026CV32677. The allegations have not been adjudicated, and Owl Labs will have an opportunity to respond.