Slashdot Mirror
FTC Warns Manufacturers That 'Warranty Void If Removed' Stickers Break the Law (vice.com)
schwit1 writes: The Federal Trade Commission put six companies on notice today, telling them in a warning letter that their warranty practices violate federal law. If you buy a car with a warranty, take it a repair shop to fix it, then have to return the car to the manufacturer, the car company isn't legally allowed to deny the return because you took your car to another shop. The same is true of any consumer device that costs more than $15, though many manufacturers want you to think otherwise.
Companies such as Sony and Microsoft pepper the edges of their game consoles with warning labels telling customers that breaking the seal voids the warranty. That's illegal. Thanks to the 1975 Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, no manufacturer is allowed to put repair restrictions on a device it offers a warranty on. Dozens of companies do it anyway, and the FTC has put them on notice. Apple, meanwhile, routinely tells customers not to use third party repair companies, and aftermarket parts regularly break iPhones due to software updates.
Companies such as Sony and Microsoft pepper the edges of their game consoles with warning labels telling customers that breaking the seal voids the warranty. That's illegal. Thanks to the 1975 Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, no manufacturer is allowed to put repair restrictions on a device it offers a warranty on. Dozens of companies do it anyway, and the FTC has put them on notice. Apple, meanwhile, routinely tells customers not to use third party repair companies, and aftermarket parts regularly break iPhones due to software updates.
"The use of" "parts is required to keep your" "manufacturerâ(TM)s warranties and any extended warranties intact"
https://www.hyundaiusa.com/myhyundai/manuals-and-how-tos/Getfaq?faqId=2&category=Consumer_Awareness
"This warranty shall not apply if this product" "is used with products not sold or licensed by"
https://www.nintendo.com/consumer/manuals/warrantytext_us.jsp
"This warranty does not apply if this product" "has had the warranty seal on the" "altered, defaced, or removed."
https://www.playstation.com/en-us/support/warranties/ps4/
They appear to be an exception to this rule at the moment.
Here's hoping the FTC takes notice of them, finally.
Weaselmancer
rediculous.
I'm a big fan of Tesla and what they are doing... but I totally agree with you. They can't be exempted from this just because they make cool stuff.
Which has more power: the hammer, or the anvil?
I believe in this case, they're inferring that "intact" means "complete" - so technically, if you swap your air cleaner assembly with an aftermarket version, that part would not be considered under warranty any more (even though the rest of the vehicle still is), and thus the warranty is no longer "intact."
Basically, they're using weasel wording to imply a complete loss of warranty even when that's not the case. Shitty way to treat your customers.
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
You agreed to this when you signed for the car. This isn't a warranty issue, it is a contract issue, which is a completely different story. First semester law school.
And in the second semester, they teach you that you can't contract away legal obligations.
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
You can't make a contract that is contrary to law. Just because the contract says "if you tamper with it, it will void the warranty". The law specifically says that it's legal to repair/tamper and it won't void the warranty.
Let me provide another, more extreme example: You buy a car seat for your new born child. The car seat is wrapped in plastic with a sticker that says by opening the package you agree to the terms and conditions in the enclosed booklet. Inside that booklet it says that the car seat doesn't meet all of the current safety requirements, you agree that you're aware of this, and that you agree to not hold the company liable for any deaths/injuries in conjunction with using the car seat. 3 months later, you get in a minor accident, but because the car seat was defective the restrains broke your child was injured with life-long brain damage. You now have life-long medical expenses to care for your child.
The company can pull out the shrink wrap agreement, but that would quickly get thrown out as the regulations in place at the time the car seat was sold clearly required specific safety features be included in all car seats. In fact, the agreement in the box specifically states that your company KNEW that the car seats didn't comply. Now your company is responsible for negligence which will triple the damages.
Basically, if the law says that in order to do business you must do X, then you can't create a contract that says "you agree that we won't do X". If the law says that if you have a warranty, then you must allow people to use 3rd party repair shops and that those won't void the warranty, then you can't create a contract that says otherwise.
Contracts that are contrary to law aren't valid. This isn't legal advise, i'm not a lawyer, etc. etc.
It's extremely common for contracts to contain unenforceable clauses, it's designed to scare people into compliance. Most people don't realise their rights, don't seek an expert opinion (doing so would usually cost more than the dispute is worth), and just comply with the demands blindly.
http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!