No it doesn't. The reason you're paying is for the ink to be delivered, even if pricing is only indirectly related to that.
> if you only print a few pages a year, you may never need a second delivery, ever.
This isn't true because the cartridges dry out and clog up if you don't use them enough.
No, you're paying to be able to print up to 10 pages a month.
Thought experiment: If signing up for a subscription required an agreement to mail (postage-paid) the cartridge back to them when the subscription lapses, would that be legitimate?
If it was to refill the cartridges and send them to another subscription customer, yes. If it was just to make sure they end up in the trash instead of getting used, then no, that should be illegal.
This is factually plain wrong. You’re paying per page. If you print more pages than agreed, even on the same cartridges, you need to pay up per page. When you sign up, they even tell you to keep your original cartridges because the new ones are for your subscription only.
No one is paying for an agreed amount of ink or cartridges to be delivered. That’s not the service. The advantage of InstantInk is that you literally don’t care about ink anymore. You know you can print the amount of pages and HP takes care of when and what ink you need.
Wanting this to be true doesn't make it true.
The wording is clear. You're not paying for ink, you're paying for pages printed. The ink is nothing more than a vehicle to deliver those printed pages. You never owned the ink.
That distinction must be understood. You never owned the ink cartridges. At best, you're renting them. Once you decide to stop paying the rent, you don't get to keep using the cartridges.
This is precisely where the analogy falls down. https://www.hp.com/us-en/printers/instant-ink/plans.html
Each plan talks about paying for x pages per month. It's pretty clear you're not paying for recurring delivery of a product; if you only print a few pages a year, you may never need a second delivery, ever.