This is not a lawsuit, looks to be arbitration and I'm unsure as to the credibility of the claim.
The attorneys for the class start by making a claim with the manufacturer. There is at least a small hope that the matter can be resolved without the need for legal action. In some cases the parties may decide to arbitrate the matter, because it is much faster, and much less expensive, than going to trial. Also, an arbitration is private; so the defendant manufacturer might end up with less negative publicity.
An arbitration doesn't have to be binding (which means that this still could go to trial if the parties aren't happy with the arbitrator's decision.) So, there are a bunch of reasons why going to arbitration might have been the right course. Going to arbitration in no way makes the proceedings illegitimate, or less serious, or less likely to result in a recovery for the class.
Car manufacturer's recommend OEM parts for proper performance, with vehicles under warranty, using non-OEM parts or using non-dealer mechanics can void warranty.
At least here in the United States, the law absolutely forbids a manufacturer from voiding a warranty because the vehicle/product has been taken to a third party mechanic or third party parts were used. That has been settled law for decades. The recent Right To Repair movement affirms this for all sorts of consumer goods.
https://www.phonearena.com/news/FTC-says-third-party-repair-services-will-not-void-warranty_id103980
It's the same in other countries too:
https://www.channelnews.com.au/the-law-says-you-cannot-void-a-warranty-with-third-party-repairs/#:~:text=But a major factor that has been misunderstood,warranties are required to include the following wording:
The only caveat is that if the third party mechanic does a bad job of repairing the vehicle, or if the third party part is inadequate or defective, the car manufacturer has no duty to repair that damage, or to replace that part under the original warranty. The third party mechanic, and/or the manufacturer of the third party part, warranty their own work/parts.
Similarly, an OEM printer manufacturer isn't legally allowed to sabotage your printer so that you can't use third party ink. That is anti-competitive.
If you use third party ink (in a non-sabotaged printer) and it somehow ruins your printer, the printer manufacturer can assert that the reason that your printer has been damaged is because of the third party ink and they can refuse to repair the printer under warranty. But they'd have to prove that contention.
Of course, sabotaging a printer that is no longer under warranty is even more egregious. If the original manufacturer is no longer on the hook to repair a broken printer, there is little legal justification for them to be forcing you to only use OEM supplies.
