Editing Magnuson–Moss Warranty Act (section)

==Historical enforcement incidents==
*General Motors Engine Interchange Litigation (1981): A class action alleged GM breached warranties by using Chevrolet engines in Oldsmobiles without disclosure. The case involved both written warranty and implied warranty claims under The Act.<ref name=":1"></ref>
*Skelton v. General Motors (1981): The 7th Circuit ruled that general advertising claims don't constitute "written warranties" under The Act, limiting the scope of actionable warranty statements.
*Kolev v. Porsche Cars North America (2011): Initially found pre-dispute mandatory arbitration clauses violated The Act, though this decision was later withdrawn.
*Hyundai/Kia Theta II Engine Case (2018): The FTC issued compliance warnings against Hyundai and Kia for attempting to require use of OEM parts to maintain warranty coverage, violating tie-in sales prohibitions. The companies revised their warranty language after FTC intervention.<ref name=":1"></ref><ref name=":5"></ref>
*FTC's 2018 Industry-Wide Compliance Warnings: The FTC issued warnings to six major companies about illegal warranty terms, particularly regarding tie-in provisions and improper warranty voiding practices.<ref name=":5"></ref>
''The Act'' is an important piece of legislation, but its enforcement is a mixed bag. Although it is enforced, often the fines are little to nothing, which encourages manufacturers to disregard it. This effectively prevents the act from properly keeping vendors accountable.

Toyota held liable for all damages in used car's in-warranty repair case - June 16, 1992. <ref name=":10">[https://web.archive.org/web/20250129195115/https://law.justia.com/cases/north-carolina/court-of-appeals/1992/9110dc643-1.html "Ismael v. Goodman Toyota"] - archive.org - archived 2025-01-29</ref> 

"Due to the purchase of the subject vehicle in used `as is' condition, the Defendant (Toyota) dealer assumed and bore no responsibility for subsequent repair of the vehicle or its road worthiness. "  the plaintiff (vehicle owner) was found to be correct and the defendant (Toyota) was found liable for damages plaintiff (vehicle owner) suffered as a result of that violation<ref name=":10" />