Texas resident filed a class action lawsuit Friday against Canon USA Inc., alleging that the company sold 16 models of printers with a defect that makes them display an error message rendering them useless.

Lead plaintiff Michael Robertson alleges in the Canon printer class action lawsuit, filed June 27, that he purchased a Canon Pixma MX860 Printer for personal use from an online retailer in March of 2010.

Robertson alleges that in his experience and in general, “[a]fter limited use,” certain models of Canon’s printers display an error message, “U052 Wrong Printhead Error,” and “disables all Printer functions, including scanning and facsimile…render[ing] the Printers unsuitable for their principal and intended purpose.”

Canon product support has defined the error message U052 as “an indication that the Printer does not recognize the printhead or the printhead itself is faulty,” the Canon printer class action lawsuit states.

Furthermore, “[i]f the issue cannot be successfully resolved by trouble-shooting, which it could not in the case of Plaintiff Robertson, the Printer must be returned to Canon for service,” and “[s]uch repair is generally more expensive than purchasing a new printer,” Robertson explains in the lawsuit.

The Canon class action lawsuit argues that Canon had knowledge of the issue because it performed repairs on the faulty printers during the warranty period and failed to recall or extend the warranty for “what it knew to be a defective product.”

Robertson alleges in the Canon printer class action lawsuit that the other Canon printers that are defective include the Canon Pixma MX892, MP600, MX860, MX700, MX712, MX960 and MP970, and claims that “[h]ad Plaintiff and members of the Class known about the defect, they would not have purchased their printers.”

Robertson also alleges that Canon concealed the defect from consumers.

“The Printers were not altered by Plaintiff, the members of the Class, Canon’s distributors or other personnel,” he claims in the Canon class action lawsuit. “The Printers were defective when they left the exclusive control of Canon and Canon knew the printers would be used without additional tests for defects.”

Robertson claims that “[b]y engaging in the above described conduct, Canon committed acts and omissions with actual malice and accompanies by a wanton and willful disregard of persons…who foreseeably might be harmed by those acts and omissions.”

Robertson claims Canon breached their express warranties that the printers would operate properly and without defects, as well as breached the implied warranty of merchantability because the printers were not of average quality and were unfit for their intended use.

The Texas man also argues that Canon violated the Magnuson-Moss Act, and claims that Canon was unjustly enriched when it allegedly concealed the alleged defects and argues that Canon should pay restitution, compensatory and punitive damages, as well as attorneys fees and costs.

Robertson requests that Canon be enjoined from selling the printers with the alleged defect and be required to inform the public about the alleged defect.

The purported class includes “all purchasers in the United States of America of the Printers” and “[t]he Class is composed of no fewer than tens of thousands of persons nation-wide” according to the Canon printer class action lawsuit.

Lead plaintiff, Michael Robertson, is represented by William B. Federman of Federman & Sherwood in Dallas, Texas.