The 10 lawsuits involve Toast, Owl Labs, Blackmagic Design, Luxottica and Meta, Sonos, DJI, Bowers & Wilkins, Roborock, Empower Tribe, and YoloLiv. Acme Revival alleges that these manufacturers failed or refused to provide qualifying replacement parts, technical manuals, firmware, diagnostic tools, and other resources necessary to repair certain consumer and commercial electronic devices.

Acme Revival began filing these lawsuits in July 2026, starting with Toast on July 7, followed by Owl Labs and Blackmagic Design later that month. Additional lawsuits were filed against Luxottica and Meta, Sonos, DJI, Bowers & Wilkins, and Roborock during September 2026. The complaints allegedly involve repeated requests for repair materials that were refused, ignored, or restricted to manufacturer-authorized service networks.

On October 7, 2026, Acme Revival filed two additional lawsuits against Empower Tribe and YoloLiv, bringing the total to 10 cases. The Empower Tribe complaint concerns Behringer, Midas, TC Helicon, and Turbosound audio equipment, while the YoloLiv complaint involves YoloBox streaming encoders and monitors. Both lawsuits allege that the manufacturers failed or refused to provide qualifying repair resources despite repeated demands.

Across the 10 cases, Acme Revival alleges that manufacturers’ restrictions have prevented the company from completing certain customer repairs, resulting in lost business opportunities, wasted diagnostic and administrative time, and harm to customer relationships. The complaints further allege that restricting access to repair materials may reduce competition and limit consumers’ ability to choose independent repair services.

Through these lawsuits, Acme Revival seeks declaratory judgments, injunctive relief requiring qualifying repair resources to be made available on fair and reasonable terms, and damages and legal costs where permitted by law. The company aims to establish manufacturers’ obligations under Colorado’s Consumer Repair Bill of Rights Act, which became applicable to covered digital electronic equipment on January 1, 2026.

The filing of 10 right-to-repair lawsuits represents a milestone in Acme Revival’s efforts to challenge allegedly unlawful restrictions on independent electronics repair. All allegations remain unproven, and the filing of these lawsuits does not establish wrongdoing by any defendant. The outcomes remain subject to judicial determination.

The post Acme Revival Takes Major Stand for Right to Repair With 10 Lawsuits Against Electronics Manufacturers appeared first on Acme Revival.

The complaint was filed on October 7, 2026, in the District Court for the City and County of Denver. It concerns Behringer, Midas, TC Helicon, and Turbosound audio equipment, including digital electronic devices used for audio mixing, recording, signal processing, sound reinforcement, connectivity, and related consumer and commercial applications, to the extent those devices are covered by Colorado law.

According to the complaint, Acme Revival has received requests since January 2026 to repair approximately 87 devices, including 45 Behringer devices, 23 TC Helicon devices, 18 Midas devices, and one Turbosound device. The requested repairs concern electronic, mechanical, software, firmware, and related functionality requiring replacement parts or technical repair materials.

Acme Revival alleges that it has been unable to accept, complete, or efficiently perform certain repairs because Empower Tribe failed or refused to provide the necessary repair materials.

Those materials allegedly include 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 resources.

The complaint states that Acme Revival submitted five separate demands through Empower Tribe’s public-facing website support channels, beginning as early as August 26, 2026, seeking access to those materials on fair and reasonable terms. It further alleges that Empower Tribe either ignored the demands or directed Acme Revival to authorized service providers rather than providing the requested materials or establishing a compliant independent repair-access process.

According to the complaint, Empower Tribe stated that service documentation, diagnostic resources, and replacement parts must be obtained through its authorized service network. In another response, Empower Tribe allegedly stated that service manuals, schematics, boardviews, and internal diagnostic or programming resources were restricted to authorized service centers and stores and that direct spare-parts ordering access could not be provided to an independent repair company.

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 and costs, subject to statutory limitations and exemptions. The complaint alleges that Empower Tribe’s refusal to provide qualifying materials violates those requirements and constitutes a deceptive trade practice under the Colorado Consumer Protection Act.

Acme Revival also alleges that Empower Tribe’s authorized-provider-only restrictions limit independent repair options and may leave device owners dependent on manufacturer-authorized repair facilities, manufacturer-controlled service arrangements, or replacement alternatives rather than allowing them to choose independent repair providers.

According to the complaint, Empower Tribe’s alleged refusal is not an isolated private dispute but reflects a broader policy or practice of restricting repair materials to authorized service centers and authorized stores. Acme Revival contends that the alleged practice restricts competition in the independent repair market and has the potential to affect other Colorado device owners, independent repair providers, and actual or potential consumers of the affected products and repair services.

The complaint alleges that Empower Tribe’s continued refusal after repeated notice was willful, knowing, intentional, and in bad faith. Acme Revival claims that it has suffered lost repair revenue, lost profits, wasted diagnostic and intake time, administrative and research expenses, harm to customer relationships and goodwill, and lost present and future repair opportunities.

Through the lawsuit, Acme Revival seeks declarations establishing the defendants’ obligations to provide qualifying repair materials for covered products on fair and reasonable terms and costs. It also seeks a permanent injunction, subject to the court’s determinations and applicable procedures, requiring the responsible defendants to establish and maintain a functional process for requesting, ordering, accessing, and receiving those materials, along with damages, interest, costs, and attorney fees as permitted by law.

The case is Acme Revival, Inc. v. Empower Tribe Commercial FZE and Empower Tribe Innovations US Inc, Case No. 2026CV33628. The allegations have not been adjudicated, and the defendants will have an opportunity to respond.

—

The post Acme Revival Sues Empower Tribe, Alleging It Broke Colorado Law by Denying Access to Essential Repair Materials appeared first on Acme Revival.

The complaint was filed on October 7, 2026, in the District Court for the City and County of Denver. It concerns YoloLiv-branded digital electronic equipment, including YoloBox streaming encoders and monitors, the YoloBox Pro, and related covered devices used for live-streaming, video switching, encoding, recording, and monitoring.

According to the complaint, Acme Revival has received customer requests seeking repairs for YoloLiv devices since January 2026. The requested repairs involve electronic, mechanical, software, firmware, and related functionality. The devices contain components such as processors, circuit boards, touchscreens, displays, audio and video connections, power supplies, charging components, and embedded software that may require specialized repair materials.

Acme Revival alleges that it has been unable to accept, complete, or efficiently perform certain repairs because YoloLiv failed or refused to provide the necessary repair materials.

Those materials allegedly include replacement parts and assemblies, repair and service manuals, schematics, boardviews, embedded software, firmware, provisioning processes, diagnostic procedures, calibration tools, proprietary diagnostic software, and related technical resources.

The complaint states that Acme Revival submitted five separate demands beginning as early as July 10, 2026, through YoloLiv’s public-facing support channels, seeking access to those materials on fair and reasonable terms. It further alleges that YoloLiv either ignored the requests or expressly refused to provide the requested resources to independent repair providers.

According to the complaint, YoloLiv responded on multiple occasions in August 2026 that its internal service documentation, diagnostic tools, firmware utilities, calibration procedures, and other proprietary repair resources were reserved for its own service and technical teams. YoloLiv allegedly directed customers and independent repair providers to send devices to its official repair center in China rather than providing access to the requested materials.

The complaint further alleges that YoloLiv provided shipping instructions on August 23, 2026, advising customers to declare a device value of approximately $50 and avoid describing devices as used, repaired, or second-hand in shipping documentation. Acme Revival alleges that these instructions encouraged the understatement of device values and concealment of their condition in customs documents.

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

Acme Revival also alleges that YoloLiv’s refusal restricts independent repair options and may leave device owners dependent on manufacturer-controlled repair services in China, potentially requiring international shipping and limiting access to local repair alternatives.

According to the complaint, YoloLiv’s alleged refusal is not an isolated private dispute but reflects a general policy of reserving internal repair resources exclusively for its own technical and service teams. Acme Revival contends that the alleged practice restricts competition in the independent repair market and affects device owners, independent repair providers, and actual or potential consumers of YoloLiv devices and repair services.

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

Through the lawsuit, Acme Revival seeks a declaration establishing YoloLiv’s obligations to provide qualifying repair materials for covered devices on fair and reasonable terms and costs. It also seeks a permanent injunction requiring YoloLiv to establish a reasonable process for requesting, ordering, accessing, and receiving those materials, along with damages, interest, costs, and attorney fees as permitted by law.

The case is Acme Revival, Inc. v. Hangzhou Xingxi Technology Co., Ltd. d/b/a YoloLiv, Case No. 2026CV33634. The allegations have not been adjudicated, and YoloLiv will have an opportunity to respond.

—

The post Acme Revival Sues YoloLiv, Alleging It Violated Colorado Law by Withholding Repair Resources appeared first on Acme Revival.

The complaint was filed on September 29, 2026, in the District Court for the City and County of Denver. It concerns Roborock-branded digital electronic equipment, including autonomous cleaning devices such as the Roborock S8 Pro Ultra and related electronic equipment.

According to the complaint, Acme Revival has received requests from customers seeking repairs for Roborock devices, including autonomous cleaning devices, since January 2026. The products at issue may contain processors, circuit boards, navigation and obstacle-detection sensors, motors, cleaning components, wireless communication hardware, power supplies, batteries, charging and docking components, connectors, embedded software, firmware, and other electronic or mechanical components.

Acme Revival alleges that it has been prevented from accepting, completing, or efficiently performing requested repairs because Roborock failed or refused to provide the necessary repair materials.

Those materials allegedly include 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 to the extent required to be made available under Colorado law.

The complaint states that Acme Revival made nine separate demands to Roborock through the public-facing support channels on Roborock’s website seeking repair materials on fair and reasonable terms and costs. It alleges that Roborock did not provide the requested qualifying repair materials, failed to respond to certain demands, refused access to requested technical information, or encouraged Acme Revival to seek paid repair through Roborock’s own service network.

According to the complaint, in a July 16, 2026 communication concerning a customer’s Roborock S8 Pro Ultra, Roborock stated that the requested service information, diagnostic procedures, schematics, firmware utilities, and calibration processes were proprietary and confidential and were not made available to independent repair providers. The complaint further alleges that Roborock asserted it was not legally obligated to provide the information in that instance and recommended use of its official service network.

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 and costs. The complaint alleges that, to the extent the law applies, Roborock’s failure or refusal to provide qualifying repair materials violated those requirements and constitutes a deceptive trade practice under the Colorado Consumer Protection Act.

Acme Revival also alleges that Roborock’s repair-access policy restricts independent repair options and competition and channels owners toward manufacturer-controlled authorized repair, service, replacement, or sales alternatives.

According to the complaint, Roborock’s alleged refusal is not an isolated private dispute but reflects a stated policy of restricting access to confidential technical information from independent repair providers. Acme Revival contends that the alleged policy concerns standardized product-support, service, repair-access, and communications channels and has the capacity to affect numerous actual and potential Roborock product owners and repair transactions.

The complaint alleges that Roborock’s express rejection of a legal duty to provide the requested information, its stated policy restricting access, and its continued withholding of qualifying repair materials support a finding that its conduct was willful, knowing, intentional, and in bad faith. Acme Revival claims that it has suffered lost repair revenue and profits, wasted diagnostic, intake, research, administrative, follow-up, and communications time, harm to customer relationships and goodwill, and lost present and future repair opportunities.

Through the lawsuit, Acme Revival seeks declarations concerning Roborock’s obligations to provide qualifying repair materials on fair and reasonable terms and costs. It also seeks a permanent injunction requiring Roborock, to the extent ordered by the court, to establish and maintain a reasonable and functional process through which Acme Revival can request, order, access, and receive qualifying repair materials, along with damages, interest, costs, and attorney fees as permitted by law.

The case is Acme Revival, Inc. v. Roborock Technology Co. d/b/a Roborock and Roborock US, Case No. 2026CV33526. The allegations have not been adjudicated, and Roborock will have an opportunity to respond.

—

The post Acme Revival Sues Roborock, Alleging Unlawful Refusal to Provide Repair Materials appeared first on Acme Revival.

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.

The post Acme Revival Sues Bowers & Wilkins: Accused of Right-to-Repair Noncompliance and Improper Interference With Independent Repair appeared first on Acme Revival.

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.

The post Acme Revival sues Sonos over access to repair resources appeared first on Acme Revival.

The complaint, filed September 16, 2026, in Denver District Court, concerns certain DJI-branded, non-aviation digital electronic products and Acme Revival’s efforts to obtain the parts, documentation, software, firmware, diagnostic tools, calibration resources, and other materials needed to diagnose, maintain, and repair the products independently.

According to the complaint, Acme sent DJI 13 separate, individualized written demands seeking repair materials needed to diagnose, maintain, or repair covered DJI products in Colorado.

The complaint states that each demand identified Acme as an independent repair facility located in Colorado and expressly cited Colorado’s Consumer Repair Bill of Rights Act and DJI’s obligations under that law.

Acme alleges that DJI did not provide a completed or substantive response to 11 of the 13 demands. According to the complaint, DJI either did not respond or initially indicated that it would get back to Acme and then did not provide a substantive response.

The complaint alleges that DJI provided two substantive responses and that both stated that the requested repair resources were limited to DJI-authorized service providers.

According to the complaint, DJI stated in one response that, under its global service policy, certain service manuals, schematic diagrams, boardviews, firmware tools, calibration utilities, and proprietary diagnostic software are made available exclusively to DJI-authorized service providers. The complaint states that DJI directed Acme to have its customer contact an authorized DJI service center.

In another response, according to the complaint, DJI stated that its position remained consistent and that replacement parts and assemblies, service documentation, diagnostic and calibration tools, firmware and provisioning processes, and related repair materials were made available only to DJI-authorized service providers.

Acme alleges that DJI acknowledged the applicability of local law, including Colorado law, but did not provide the requested repair materials, offer terms through which Acme could obtain them, or identify a process for obtaining qualifying repair resources as an independent repair provider.

The lawsuit concerns only certain stand-alone, non-aviation DJI products. The complaint expressly states that it does not seek repair access for drones, unmanned aircraft, aircraft systems, or other aviation equipment excluded from the Colorado statute.

According to the complaint, the covered products at issue may include non-aviation imaging, video, audio, stabilization, charging, connectivity, and related consumer or commercial electronic equipment.

The complaint alleges that these products may contain processors, circuit boards, sensors, camera or audio components, stabilization components, wireless communications hardware, power supplies, charging components, connectors, embedded software, firmware, and other electronic or mechanical components.

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

The lawsuit also seeks to determine DJI’s legal responsibilities with respect to the manufacture, supply, possession, control, service, and repair-access functions associated with the covered products and their repair materials.

The complaint states that SZ DJI Technology Co., Ltd. and affiliated DJI entities participate in various product, software, support, service, warranty, and repair functions, and alleges that the precise allocation of those responsibilities is primarily or uniquely within DJI’s possession and knowledge.

Acme alleges that DJI possesses, uses, controls, provides within its authorized service network, or can obtain technical documentation, diagnostic and calibration tools, replacement parts and assemblies, firmware and provisioning resources, service materials, warranty materials, and other resources relevant to diagnosing and correcting defects in covered products.

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 provisions extending the law to covered digital electronic equipment became applicable January 1, 2026.

The complaint alleges that, to the extent DJI qualifies as a manufacturer under the statute and the products and requested materials fall within the law, restricting qualifying repair materials solely to DJI-authorized service providers violates Colorado’s Consumer Repair Bill of Rights Act and constitutes a deceptive trade practice under the Colorado Consumer Protection Act.

The lawsuit also asks the court to determine which non-aviation DJI products or product systems qualify as covered digital electronic equipment and which requested repair materials DJI is legally required to provide.

Acme alleges that directing product owners solely toward DJI-authorized service centers does not satisfy a covered manufacturer’s obligation to make qualifying repair materials available to an independent repair provider where Colorado law requires such access.

According to the complaint, DJI did not identify any particular requested part as unavailable to the original equipment manufacturer and did not identify a trade-secret limitation, privacy or anti-theft limitation, federal-law conflict, virtual-diagnostic limitation, or other statutory exemption as the reason for withholding any particular requested repair material.

The complaint further alleges that DJI described the challenged restriction as part of its “global service policy” and stated that its answer “remains consistent,” which Acme alleges indicates that the restrictions reflected an established repair-access policy rather than isolated support responses.

According to the complaint, restricting repair resources to an authorized service network can limit independent repair options and direct product owners toward manufacturer-controlled repair, service, replacement, or sales alternatives rather than independent repair.

Acme alleges that DJI’s conduct has prevented it from accepting, completing, or efficiently performing requested repairs.

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

The complaint alleges that DJI continued applying its authorized-provider-only policy after receiving repeated written notice of Colorado law and that this conduct was willful, knowing, intentional, or in bad faith. Those allegations have not been adjudicated.

Through the lawsuit, Acme Revival seeks declarations concerning which non-aviation DJI products are covered by Colorado law, whether DJI qualifies as a manufacturer with respect to those products, and what qualifying repair materials DJI must make available to Acme on fair and reasonable terms and costs.

Acme also seeks a declaration that restricting qualifying repair materials solely to DJI-authorized service providers does not satisfy a covered manufacturer’s obligations under Colorado law and that directing owners solely to authorized DJI service centers does not itself satisfy an obligation to provide qualifying repair access to independent repair providers.

The lawsuit seeks permanent injunctive relief that, if Acme prevails and DJI is found legally responsible, would require DJI to make qualifying repair materials available on fair and reasonable terms and maintain a reasonable and functional process through which Acme can request, order, access, and receive those materials.

The requested relief also includes requiring DJI, where legally applicable, to maintain a functional communications process for repair-access requests, identify contractors through which qualifying materials are provided on DJI’s behalf, and refrain from restricting qualifying repair materials solely to authorized service providers where Colorado law requires independent access.

Acme also seeks actual or statutory damages available under the Colorado Consumer Protection Act, including enhanced damages if bad-faith conduct is established by the required evidentiary standard, as well as attorney fees, costs, interest, and other legal or equitable relief available under Colorado law.

The case is Acme Revival, Inc. v. SZ DJI Technology Co., Ltd., Case No. 2026CV33354

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

The post Acme Revival sues DJI over access to independent repair resources appeared first on Acme Revival.

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.