Magnuson Moss Warranty Act and the EPA

[PayrollHRGuy]

What is the name of your state? Arkansas but applies nationwide.

A while back the EPA and Harley Davidson Motor Company entered into a consent decree that in part says this...

14. Denial of Warranty.
a. Defendants shall deny all warranty claims for functional defects of
powertrain components for any Harley-Davidson vehicle (Model Year
2017 or later) registered in the United States, if any Defendants have any
information to show that such vehicle was tuned using a Tuning Product
that was not covered by a California ARB Executive Order or otherwise
approved by EPA.

This this because HD MoCo has for years sold parts that were installed by a not small percentage of buys that made the bikes not EPA or CARB compliant. I fully understand the parts of the consent decree where HD MoCo agrees to stop selling and installing these non-conforming parts. How does the EPA get by with overruling Magnuson Moss Warranty Act which has been held by the FTC and courts to require that unless the warrantor can show that the aftermarket modification caused the damage that is under warranty the warranty stands?

 

[adjusterjack]

The how is explained by the did.

Besides, that consent decree occurred in August 2016, well in advance of the 2017 model, so anybody buying a Harley of the 2017 model year or later has actual and constructive notice that warranty claims will be denied if the illegal device is installed on the bike.

While I haven't read a 2017 or later warranty booklet, I'd guess that the limitation is included in the warranty.

I'd also guess that the denial of warranty claims under the consent decree would be enforceable between buyer and manufacturer.

Any aggrieved buyer may, of course, sue HD for breach of warranty and try to convince a judge that the consent decree doesn't apply.

 

[xylene]

Feeling nervous about the possible effect on your warranty of installing coveted tuner cr*p that you actually 'have to' have to have a cool bike is not an actual thing you can sue for.

Did you have a warranty repair disclaimed?

 

[PayrollHRGuy]

The how is explained by the did.

Besides, that consent decree occurred in August 2016, well in advance of the 2017 model, so anybody buying a Harley of the 2017 model year or later has actual and constructive notice that warranty claims will be denied if the illegal device is installed on the bike.

While I haven't read a 2017 or later warranty booklet, I'd guess that the limitation is included in the warranty.

I'd also guess that the denial of warranty claims under the consent decree would be enforceable between buyer and manufacturer.

Any aggrieved buyer may, of course, sue HD for breach of warranty and try to convince a judge that the consent decree doesn't apply.

The Magnuson Moss Warranty Act and the FTC's enforcement of the law is quite clear that a warrantor can not do what the consent decree is requiring that the MoCo do even if they put it in the written warranty.

My question isn't really about the MoCo entering the consent decree. It is about the legality of the EPA making them violate a law (enforced by another agency) as part of the punishment for violating a law enforced by the EPA.

 

[PayrollHRGuy]

Feeling nervous about the possible effect on your warranty of installing coveted tuner cr*p that you actually 'have to' have to have a cool bike is not an actual thing you can sue for.

Did you have a warranty repair disclaimed?

Nope not at all. My bike is a 2014.

 

[adjusterjack]

It is about the legality of the EPA making them violate a law (enforced by another agency) as part of the punishment for violating a law enforced by the EPA.

It's legal until a court says it isn't. That's how it works.

It would be up to an aggrieved Harley owner to pursue litigation on the matter.

 

[justalayman]

It was included in the courts order that the warranty include the denial of a warranty claim when it can be shown the customer altered their motorcycle using the illlegal tuners on 2017 and later models. It was also required to include such notice in the warranty be included starting dec 31 2016.

That does allow for a limited number of purchasers that purchased 2017 models prior to dec 31 2016 to be improperly denied coverage. I suspect they have a valid arguement they should be dissalowed warranty coverage.

Maybe you can be the test case


Other than that, there is nothing improper about including within a warranty that of you do [this] your warranty is void. They do not have to prove the damage was caused by the alteration if it is specified in the warranty. The moss magnesun acts prohibits denial of coverage if an alteration doesn’t cause the damage if it was not excluded by the warranty.

Did you ever notice that racing motorcycles have virtually no warranty, even if you don’t make any alterations? That’s because the stated warranty is that there is virtually no warranty.

as long as the denials are based on stated coverage limitations, it doesn’t violate moss magnesun.

 

[PayrollHRGuy]

§700.10 Prohibited tying.

(c) No warrantor may condition the continued validity of a warranty on the use of only authorized repair service and/or authorized replacement parts for non-warranty service and maintenance (other than an article of service provided without charge under the warranty or unless the warrantor has obtained a waiver pursuant to section 102(c) of the Act, 15 U.S.C. 2302(c)). For example, provisions such as, “This warranty is void if service is performed by anyone other than an authorized `ABC' dealer and all replacement parts must be genuine `ABC' parts,” and the like, are prohibited where the service or parts are not covered by the warranty. These provisions violate the Act in two ways. First, they violate the section 102(c), 15 U.S.C. 2302(c), ban against tying arrangements. Second, such provisions are deceptive under section 110 of the Act, 15 U.S.C. 2310, because a warrantor cannot, as a matter of law, avoid liability under a written warranty where a defect is unrelated to the use by a consumer of “unauthorized” articles or service. In addition, warranty language that implies to a consumer acting reasonably in the circumstances that warranty coverage requires the consumer's purchase of an article or service identified by brand, trade or corporate name is similarly deceptive. For example, a provision in the warranty such as, “use only an authorized `ABC' dealer” or “use only `ABC' replacement parts,” is prohibited where the service or parts are not provided free of charge pursuant to the warranty. This does not preclude a warrantor from expressly excluding liability for defects or damage caused by “unauthorized” articles or service; nor does it preclude the warrantor from denying liability where the warrantor can demonstrate that the defect or damage was so caused.

OK how does all of that square with the bolded section above and this from and FTC notice.

Will using ‘aftermarket’ parts void my warranty?
No. An ‘aftermarket’ part is a part made by a company other than the vehicle manufacturer or the original equipment manufacturer. Simply using an aftermarket part does not void your warranty.

The Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act makes it illegal for companies to void your warranty or deny coverage under the warranty simply because you used an aftermarket part. Still, if it turns out that
the aftermarket part was itself defective or wasn’t installed correctly, and it causes damage to another part that is covered under the warranty, the manufacturer or dealer has the right to deny coverage for that part and charge you for any repairs. The FTC says the manufacturer or dealer must show that the aftermarket equipment caused the need for repairs before denying warranty coverage.

 

[xylene]

Is there anyone whose warranty has actually been disclaimed?

 

[PayrollHRGuy]

Is there anyone whose warranty has actually been disclaimed?

Not to my knowledge and I'm accessing a pretty large group of 2017-2018 Harley owners when answering that. Many of whom have used 3rd party tuning devices and had warranty work done. It is a concern in the community though that this is hanging out there.

And you made a comment earlier that I didn't reply to. Many of the Tuners in question and all that the community I'm dealing with care about are tuners that were sold by the MoCo or are sold by legitimate companies and installed and tuned by professionals. In fact the MoCo still sells and uses one that is limited to remain with EPA guidelines.

You should understand that these items aren't just to soup up the bike. The are needed to correct the Fuel/Air ratio when certain factory and after parts are used.

This goes right back to the original issue but another branch. The law does not allow a maker to require the use of any given part or service. But this consent decree requires that only the MoCo's tuner be used.

 

[adjusterjack]

OK how does all of that square with the bolded section above and this from and FTC notice.

Because "all of that" has nothing to do with putting an "illegal" part on the vehicle.

As does the "consumer guide" that you appear to have quoted.

 

[justalayman]

You are misinterpreting the Act.

The published/states warranty cannot be denied under section 700.10 but since the new warranty states your warranty is voided if you use an illegal tuner, it is not denying any published coverage.

That is why I said those purchasers of 2017 models that purchase their bikes before the warranty included the limitation would have an arguable point they cannot be denied coverage.

And the 2018 model owners have no argument since the warranty published for all 2018 models included the limitation.

 

[PayrollHRGuy]

The parts are not in all cases illegal. While most of them are illegal in California they aren't in the rest of the country and many of them do not even violate EPA guidelines in an of themselves.

I sort of understand why some of the new users get upset. I've asked a completely legit legal question here about an issue I don't fully understand. I've added some cites. Yet most of you seem to be fixated on the nature of the parts.

 

[PayrollHRGuy]

With the exception of justalayman.....

You are misinterpreting the Act.

The published/states warranty cannot be denied under section 700.10 but since the new warranty states your warranty is voided if you use an illegal tuner, it is not denying any published coverage.

That is why I said those purchasers of 2017 models that purchase their bikes before the warranty included the limitation would have an arguable point they cannot be denied coverage.

And the 2018 model owners have no argument since the warranty published for all 2018 models included the limitation.

I may be misinterpreting it. But it seems to me that a warranty isn't allowed to do that under the Magg-Moss act.

 

[justalayman]

The parts are not in all cases illegal. While most of them are illegal in California they aren't in the rest of the country and many of them do not even violate EPA guidelines in an of themselves.

I sort of understand why some of the new users get upset. I've asked a completely legit legal question here about an issue I don't fully understand. I've added some cites. Yet most of you seem to be fixated on the nature of the parts.

Do these products cause the vehicle to exceed the legal emissions limits? If so, they would be illegal in all states.