Court Dismisses Printer Lawsuit, Orders Plaintiff to Pay Costs
A small claims court in Israel has dismissed a lawsuit filed by a real estate business owner against a company, A.R. Laser Line Ltd., for allegedly selling a faulty printer and non-original toner. The plaintiff, who purchased a printer for 673 shekels and toner for approximately 260 shekels in February 2025, claimed the printer arrived with an opened box and that the company knowingly sold her a replacement toner as if it were original. She further alleged that the use of this toner caused repeated malfunctions, ultimately rendering the printer unusable, and that she wasted significant time and effort dealing with the issue. The company denied these claims, stating the printer was delivered new and functional, and that the plaintiff used it for months until the toner ran out. They also presented evidence that the printer was examined by an authorized importer, Reshef Solutions Ltd., which found it to be in good working order and only requiring a toner replacement.
The court, presided over by Judge Boaz Ben-Ami, noted factual inaccuracies in the plaintiff's claims, including her repeated references to 'Brother' support and labs, while the purchased printer was a 'Phantom' model serviced by Reshef Solutions. Crucially, the judge found no evidence to support the plaintiff's central claim that the replacement toner caused the printer's malfunction. The plaintiff failed to provide any professional expert opinion, lab report, or other objective documentation linking the toner to the printer's failure. The court also pointed out that the plaintiff's continued use of the printer for months undermined her claim of a fundamental defect from the outset. The judge further stated that the plaintiff's consumer behavior and her decision not to purchase an extended warranty, which included in-home service, contributed to the issues.
The plaintiff's assertion of a pattern of deceptive practices by the company was also rejected. The judge reviewed the previous court rulings she cited and found they did not substantiate her claims regarding the sale of replacement toner as original. Regarding the 260 shekel refund for the toner, the company provided credit card cancellation reports as prima facie evidence of the refund. The plaintiff claimed the credit card used was no longer active, but the court ruled this did not negate the refund transaction. She was required to provide positive proof, such as bank statements or a letter from the credit card issuer, to demonstrate the credit was not received.
Ultimately, the lawsuit was dismissed, and the plaintiff was ordered to pay 500 shekels in legal costs within 30 days. However, a conditional clause was included: if the plaintiff provides proof that the 260 shekel credit was not received, the company must issue a direct bank transfer for that amount within 14 days of the proof being presented. The ruling was issued on August 25, 2026, with a 30-day window to appeal to the Tel Aviv District Court.
