The complaint, filed September 5, 2026, in Denver District Court, concerns Ray-Ban Meta smart glasses and Acme Revival’s efforts to obtain the parts, documentation, software, firmware, tools, and other resources needed to diagnose and repair the products independently.

According to the complaint, Acme Revival received at least 400 requests during 2026 from owners seeking diagnosis, maintenance, or repair of Ray-Ban Meta products. Acme alleges that it has been unable to accept or complete certain repairs because necessary repair materials have not been made available.

The complaint states that Acme repeatedly contacted Luxottica, Ray-Ban support and legal channels, and channels associated with Meta while identifying itself as a Colorado independent repair provider and invoking the state’s Consumer Repair Bill of Rights Act.

Acme alleges that the defendants did not provide the requested repair materials or establish a workable process through which they could be obtained on fair and reasonable terms. Instead, according to the complaint, Acme was directed at various times toward warranty service, manufacturer-controlled service processes, generic service requests, replacement devices, or the purchase of another product.

The lawsuit also seeks to determine the respective responsibilities of Luxottica and Meta within the Ray-Ban Meta product ecosystem. The complaint alleges that Luxottica manufactures and provides warranty support for the products, while Meta participates in their development, technology, software, services, and support.

Acme states that the precise allocation of responsibility for physical parts, firmware, embedded software, diagnostics, technical documentation, service procedures, warranties, and repair-access decisions is not publicly clear and is 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.

The complaint alleges that, to the extent each defendant qualifies as a manufacturer under the statute, failure to provide qualifying repair materials violates Colorado law and constitutes a deceptive trade practice under the Colorado Consumer Protection Act.

The lawsuit also asks the court to address the scope of statutory exclusions relating to medical-device manufacturers and equipment manufactured for use in medical settings. Acme alleges that the Ray-Ban Meta products at issue are consumer electronics and that its requested repairs concern their electronic and technological systems, not prescription lenses or medical services.

According to the complaint, restricting access to repair resources can limit independent repair options and steer consumers toward manufacturer-controlled service, whole-device replacement, or purchasing another device rather than repairing an existing one.

Acme alleges that it has suffered lost repair revenue, wasted diagnostic and administrative time, lost repair opportunities, and harm to customer relationships and goodwill.

Through the lawsuit, Acme Revival seeks declarations concerning which products and defendants are covered by Colorado law and what repair resources must be provided. It also seeks injunctive relief requiring defendants found legally responsible to provide qualifying repair materials on fair and reasonable terms and maintain a functional process for independent repair providers to obtain them.

Acme also seeks damages, attorney fees, costs, interest, and other relief available under Colorado law.

The case is Acme Revival, Inc. v. Luxottica Group S.p.A., Luxottica of America Inc., Meta Platforms, Inc., and Meta Platforms Technologies, LLC, Case No. 2026CV33235.

The allegations have not been adjudicated, and the defendants will have an opportunity to respond.

The post Acme Revival sues Luxottica and Meta over access to Ray-Ban Meta repair resources appeared first on Acme Revival.

The complaint was filed on July 30, 2026, in the District Court for the City and County of Denver. It concerns Blackmagic-branded digital cinema cameras, live-production switchers, video capture and playback devices, broadcast monitors, control panels, audio equipment, and related digital electronic equipment.

According to the complaint, Acme Revival received at least twenty-seven repair requests for Blackmagic devices during 2026, in addition to other requests received previously. The reported problems have included power failures, damaged or nonfunctional image sensors, displays, camera mounts, video-processing modules, audio interfaces, cooling systems, housings, ports, connectors, control panels, and circuit boards, as well as software and firmware faults and other defects requiring replacement parts or technical repair materials.

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

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

The complaint states that Acme Revival requested or attempted to obtain those materials through Blackmagic’s public support channels and other available channels. According to the complaint, Blackmagic represented in substance that it does not sell individual replacement parts or provide customers with schematics, internal software, or related repair resources, and that devices requiring repair must instead be sent to Blackmagic for physical inspection by its technicians.

Acme Revival further alleges that it sent written demands identifying itself as a Colorado independent repair provider and requesting access to repair materials on fair and reasonable terms. The complaint alleges that Blackmagic 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 them.

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 Blackmagic’s failure to comply with those requirements constitutes a deceptive trade practice under the Colorado Consumer Protection Act.

Acme Revival also alleges that Blackmagic’s refusal limits independent repair options and may leave device owners dependent on manufacturer-controlled support or replacement, whole-unit replacement, higher repair costs, unnecessary delays, or disposal of devices that might otherwise be repairable.

According to the complaint, Blackmagic’s 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 Blackmagic devices and repair services.

The complaint alleges that Blackmagic’s continued refusal after receiving notice was knowing, willful, intentional, and undertaken in bad faith. Acme Revival claims that it has suffered lost repair revenue and 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 a declaration that Blackmagic must provide covered repair materials on fair and reasonable terms. It also seeks an injunction requiring Blackmagic to establish and maintain a reasonable process for ordering, accessing, and receiving those materials, along with actual damages, prejudgment interest, statutory damages, treble damages for alleged bad-faith conduct, costs, and attorney fees as permitted by law.

The case is Acme Revival, Inc. v. Blackmagic Design, Inc., Case No. 2026CV32771. The allegations have not been adjudicated, and Blackmagic Design will have an opportunity to respond.

—

The post Acme Revival sues Blackmagic Design, alleging it broke the law by refusing to provide repair parts appeared first on Acme Revival.

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.

The post Acme Revival files Colorado Right-to-Repair lawsuit against Owl Labs appeared first on Acme Revival.

The complaint was filed on July 7, 2026, in the District Court for the City and County of Denver. It concerns Toast-branded point-of-sale terminals, handheld payment devices, card readers, restaurant technology hardware, and related digital electronic equipment.

According to the complaint, Acme Revival has received hundreds of requests from owners seeking repairs for Toast devices. The reported problems have included failed batteries and charging systems, damaged housings and touchscreens, malfunctioning card readers and buttons, circuit-board failures, loose or damaged connectors, damaged cables, damaged ports, and other defects requiring replacement parts or technical repair materials.

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

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

The complaint states that Acme Revival sent numerous written requests seeking access to those materials on fair and reasonable terms. It further alleges that Toast 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 provide a written basis for withholding them.

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 Toast’s failure to comply with those requirements constitutes a deceptive trade practice under the Colorado Consumer Protection Act.

Acme Revival also alleges that Toast’s refusal limits independent repair options and may leave device owners dependent on manufacturer-controlled repair, whole-unit replacement, higher repair costs, unnecessary delays, or disposal of devices that might otherwise be repairable.

According to the complaint, Toast’s 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 Toast devices and repair services.

The complaint alleges that Toast’s continued refusal after notice was knowing, willful, intentional, and in bad faith. Acme Revival claims that it has suffered lost repair revenue, wasted diagnostic and intake time, customer relationship harm, loss of goodwill, and lost future repair opportunities.

Through the lawsuit, Acme Revival seeks a declaration that Toast must provide covered repair materials on fair and reasonable terms. It also seeks an injunction requiring Toast to establish a reasonable process for ordering and receiving those materials, along with damages, interest, costs, and attorney fees as permitted by law.

The case is Acme Revival, Inc. v. Toast, Inc., Case No. 2026CV32473. The allegations have not been adjudicated, and Toast will have an opportunity to respond.

—

The post Acme Revival sues Toast, alleging it broke the law by refusing to provide repair parts appeared first on Acme Revival.