Acme Revival sues Sonos over access to repair resources
Complaint alleges Sonos failed to provide Acme Revival with parts, manuals, software, firmware, tools, and other resources needed to independently repair Sonos digital audio products.
Denver, CO — Denver-based Acme Revival has filed a lawsuit against Sonos, Inc., alleging violations of Colorado’s Consumer Repair Bill of Rights Act and the Colorado Consumer Protection Act.
The complaint, filed September 16, 2026, in Denver District Court, concerns Sonos-branded digital audio products and Acme Revival’s efforts to obtain the parts, documentation, embedded software, firmware, tools, diagnostic information, and other resources needed to diagnose, maintain, and repair the products independently.
According to the complaint, Acme Revival has received approximately 45 requests from owners seeking diagnosis, maintenance, or repair of Sonos products. Acme alleges that it has been unable to accept, complete, or fully perform certain requested repairs because necessary repair materials have not been made available.
The complaint states that, beginning around July 14, 2026, Acme made 14 separate written demands through Sonos’ public-facing support channels and channels provided for legal communications while seeking access to repair parts and other resources under Colorado’s Consumer Repair Bill of Rights Act.
Acme alleges that Sonos either failed to respond to those requests or advised Acme that it was unable to provide the requested repair parts or resources.
According to the complaint, on August 25, 2026, Sonos offered a paid replacement option and stated that it was unable to provide repair parts or resources for the product at issue rather than providing the repair materials Acme had requested.
The complaint further alleges that Acme sent another written demand for repair access on August 31, 2026, and followed up on September 9 after receiving no response. According to the complaint, Sonos had not responded to the August 31 demand or the September 9 follow-up as of September 11, 2026.
Acme alleges that Sonos did not provide a process through which it could order or otherwise obtain qualifying repair parts and resources on fair and reasonable terms. The complaint also alleges that Acme was not directed to a contractor making required parts available on Sonos’ behalf.
According to the complaint, Sonos manufactures or causes Sonos-branded digital audio products to be manufactured and participates in United States sales, support, service, warranty, legal, and repair-access functions associated with those products.
The lawsuit also seeks to determine Sonos’ obligations concerning particular repair materials associated with its products. The complaint alleges that Sonos possesses, uses, controls, or can obtain certain resources related to the hardware, software, firmware, digital functionality, diagnostics, maintenance, repair, updating, activation, or restoration of Sonos products.
Acme states that the precise ownership, availability, and control of particular repair materials within Sonos’ product and service operations are matters primarily or uniquely within Sonos’ possession and knowledge and are expected to be addressed through discovery.
Colorado’s Consumer Repair Bill of Rights Act requires manufacturers of covered digital electronic equipment to make certain repair documentation, parts, embedded software, firmware, tools, and related resources available to owners and independent repair providers on fair and reasonable terms and costs.
The complaint alleges that qualifying Sonos products are consumer digital audio equipment that depend, in whole or in part, on embedded digital electronics to function as intended. Depending on the model, the products may contain speakers, processors, circuit boards, wireless communication hardware, power supplies, charging components, connectors, embedded software, firmware, and other electronic or mechanical components.
Acme alleges that its requested repairs concern the electronic, mechanical, software, firmware, and related consumer functionality of those products.
The lawsuit applies its claims under Colorado’s repair statute only to products that meet the statute’s requirements, including applicable requirements relating to when the equipment was first manufactured, sold, or used in Colorado.
According to the complaint, Sonos publicly provides product support and warranty services and offers manufacturer-controlled repair or replacement options for qualifying defective products. The complaint also cites Sonos’ sale of Certified Refurbished products, which Sonos represents undergo testing and carry the same warranty as new products.
Acme alleges that these activities support an inference that Sonos possesses, uses, or has access to technical, diagnostic, service, warranty, replacement, or other resources relevant to identifying and addressing defects in Sonos products. The complaint does not allege solely from Sonos’ warranty or replacement services that Sonos necessarily possesses every particular component, schematic, tool, or document requested by Acme.
According to the complaint, directing an independent repair provider toward a paid whole-device replacement does not itself make qualifying repair materials available or satisfy an otherwise applicable statutory obligation to provide repair resources on fair and reasonable terms.
Acme alleges that Sonos’ repeated failure or refusal to provide the requested repair materials through its support and legal channels reflects an ongoing repair-access practice rather than a single isolated interaction.
According to the complaint, restricting access to qualifying repair resources can limit independent repair options and competition and may channel product owners toward manufacturer-controlled warranty service, replacement devices, or purchasing another product rather than repairing an existing one.
Acme alleges that it has suffered lost repair revenue and profits, wasted diagnostic, intake, research, administrative, and communications time, lost present and future repair opportunities, and harm to customer relationships and goodwill.
The complaint further alleges that the approximately 45 repair requests received by Acme demonstrate actual consumer demand for independent repair services involving Sonos products and that additional owners are likely to require diagnosis, maintenance, or repair as the products continue to be sold, supported, and used.
Through the lawsuit, Acme Revival seeks declarations concerning which Sonos products are covered by Colorado law, whether Sonos qualifies as a manufacturer under the statute with respect to those products, and what qualifying repair resources Sonos must provide.
Acme also seeks a declaration that directing an independent repair provider solely toward paid whole-device replacement or the purchase of another product does not itself satisfy a covered manufacturer’s obligations under Colorado’s Consumer Repair Bill of Rights Act.
The lawsuit seeks permanent injunctive relief that, if Acme prevails and the court determines the statutory requirements apply, would require Sonos to make qualifying repair materials available on fair and reasonable terms and costs and maintain a reasonable and functional process through which Acme can request, order, access, and receive those materials.
The requested relief also includes identifying any contractor through which qualifying materials are made available on Sonos’ behalf, maintaining a functional communications process for repair-access requests, providing required updates to qualifying documentation, embedded software, firmware, or tools, and refraining from treating paid whole-device replacement as a substitute for statutory repair access where Colorado law requires such access.
Acme also seeks actual damages or other damages available under the Colorado Consumer Protection Act, attorney fees, costs, interest, and other legal or equitable relief available under Colorado law. The complaint states that Acme may seek three times its actual damages if bad-faith conduct is established by clear and convincing evidence as provided by statute.
The case is Acme Revival, Inc. v. Sonos, Inc., Case No. 2026CV33349
The allegations have not been adjudicated, and Sonos will have an opportunity to respond.