Hopefully this will help some people out on their warranty questions, and maybe stop the mass of warranty questions every day.
First Ill post a link to a summary of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act of 1975, so if you would like to read it you can find it
here. I will also post the entire US Federal Code at the end of the thread.
This is what the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act is.
On January 4, 1975, President Ford signed into law the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, Title 1, 101-112, 15 U.S.C. 2301 et seq. This act, effective July 4, 1975, is designed to "improve the adequacy of information available to consumers, prevent deception, and improve competition in the marketing of consumer products. . . ." The Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act applies only to consumer products, which are defined as "any tangible personal property which is distributed in commerce and which is normally used for personal, family, or household purposes (including any such property intended to be attached to or installed in any real property without regard to whether it is so attached or installed)." Under Section 103 of the Act, if a warrantor sells a consumer product costing more than $15 under written warranty, the writing must state the warranty in readily understandable language as determined by standards set forth by the Federal Trade Commission. There is, however, no requirement that a warranty be given nor that any product be warranted for any length of time. Thus the Act only requires that when there is a written warranty, the warrantor clearly disclose the nature of his warranty obligation prior to the sale of the product. The consumer may then compare warranty protection, thus shopping for the "best buy." To further protect the consumer from deception, the Act requires that any written warranty must be labeled as either a "full" or a "limited" warranty. Only warranties that meet the standards of the Act may be labeled as "full." One of the most important provisions of the Act prohibits a warrantor from disclaiming or modifying any implied warranty whenever any written warranty is given or service contract entered into. Implied warranties may, however, be limited in duration if the limitation is reasonable, conscionable, and set forth in clear and unmistakable language prominently displayed on the face of the warranty. A consumer damaged by breach of warranty, or noncompliance with the act, may sue in either state or federal district court. Access to federal court, however, is severely limited by the Act's provision that no claim may be brought in federal court if: (a) The amount in controversy of any individual claim is less than $25,000; (b) the amount in controversy is less than the sum or value of $50,000 computed on the basis of all claims in the suit; or (c) a class action is brought, and the number of named plaintiffs is less than 100. In light of these requirements it is likely that most suits will be brought in state court. If the consumer prevails, he is awarded costs and attorneys' fees. Nothing in the Act invalidates any right or remedy available under state law, and most suits should proceed on claims based on both the Code and the Act.
This is why the MMW Act was created.
In order to improve the adequacy of information available to consumers, prevent deception, and improve competition in the marketing of consumer products, any warrantor warranting a consumer product to a consumer by means of a written warranty shall. . .fully and conspicuously disclose in simple and readily understood language the terms and conditions of such warranty. Such rules . . . require inclusion in the written warranty of any . . . exceptions and exclusions from the terms of the warranty.’ – Magnuson-Moss Warranty & Federal Trade Commission improvement Act. Section 2302(a)
This will try to convince you to have some security in your aftermarket parts.
The Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act: Protecting tweakers, tuners, and other users of aftermarket equipment.
You want to upgrade your vehicle with aftermarket equipment, but you’re worried about putting the vehicle’s warranty at risk. It’s no wonder, how many times have you heard some one at a dealership say that installing aftermarket equipment automatically voids the warranty? This common misconception has been repeated often enough to be widely believed –though it is
completely false.
Fact: Dealers don’t like warranty work, because it pays less than normal repair work. By promoting the myth that aftermarket equipment automatically voids warranties, some dealers avoid such low-paying work. Instead, they attempt to charge customers the prime service rate for work which is rightfully done under warranty.
Most vehicle owners are not aware they are protected by federal law: the Magnuson-Moss Warranty – Federal Trade Commission Improvement Act of 1975. Under the MMW Act,
aftermarket equipment which improves performance does not void a vehicle manufacturer’s original warranty,
unless the warranty clearly and conspicuously states that aftermarket equipment voids the warranty (ours does not). Most states have warranty statutes, as well. Which provide further protections for vehicle owners.
In other words, that means a dealer can’t wiggle out of his legal warranty obligation merely because you install aftermarket equipment. To find out if any aftermarket equipment automatically voids your vehicle’s warranty, check the owner’s manual. It will be under the sections titled "What is not covered". Your vehicle manufacturer is simply saying he does not cover the aftermarket products themselves. He is not saying that the products would void the vehicle warranty.
Suppose your modified vehicle needs repairs while still under warranty. Without analyzing the true cause of the problem, the dealer attempts to deny warranty coverage. He made his decision simply based on the fact that you’ve installed aftermarket equipment – a convenient way to dodge low-paying warranty work.
Fact: A dealer must
prove – not just say – that aftermarket equipment caused the need for repairs before he can deny warranty coverage on that basis.
Point out to the dealer the provision of the MMW Act. Require that he explain to you how the aftermarket equipment caused the problem. If he can’t – or his explanation sounds questionable – it is your legal right to demand he comply with the warranty.
If you are being unfairly denied warranty coverage, there is recourse. The Federal Trade Commission, which administers the MMWAct, monitors compliance with warranty issues. Direct complaints to the FCT at (202) 326-3128.
These are direct quotes from US auto manufacturers.
DODGE MOTORS
“Certain changes that you might make to your truck do not, by themselves, void the warranties described in this booklet. Examples of some of these changes are: installing non-Chrysler parts, components, or equipment.” – 1997 Warranty Information supplement to Dodge
GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION
“If a Chevrolet part fails due to a defect in material or workmanship not related to (on aftermarket products) or the labor to install it. Chevrolet would be responsible for covering the failed part.” – Chevrolet Customer Assistance Center
FORD MOTOR COMPANY
“Installation of a non-genuine Ford item does not, in and of itself, render warranty void.” – Ford Owner Relations Division
Almost everyone has heard that the mere installation and/or use of aftermarket parts will void a vehicle manufacturer's warranty. That claim appears to know no limitations and is heralded from coast to coast with no lack of certainty. In spite of having unbridled support, however, one basic pro
Your Warranty!
