Magnuson–Moss Warranty Act: Difference between revisions
m citations details Tag: 2017 source edit |
Tag: 2017 source edit |
||
(3 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown) | |||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
[[Category:Legislation]] | [[Category:Legislation]] | ||
TODO: Would like someone to look over | <!-- TODO: Would like someone to look over the law's textand give a more robust summary; until then the summary is from Wikipedia. -->[[wikipedia:Magnuson–Moss_Warranty_Act|The Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act]] (The Act) is a landmark U.S. federal law (15 U.S.C. § 2301 et seq.) enacted on January 4, 1975, to govern consumer product warranties. Sponsored by Senator Warren G. Magnuson and Representative John E. Moss, the Act was designed to address widespread misuse of warranties by manufacturers, particularly through unfair disclaimers and misleading practices.<ref name=":1">{{Cite web |last=Brooks |first=Michael |date= |title=Magnuson-Moss Overview |url=https://www.autosafety.org/magnuson-moss-overview/ |website=autosaftey.org }}</ref> | ||
===Purpose=== | |||
The intention of The Act is to establish federal standards for warranty content and disclosure, make warranties more transparent and enforceable for consumers, and to enhance the Federal Trade Commission's (FTC) consumer protection capabilities.<ref name=":2">{{Cite web |last=Conn |first=Elliot |date=August 26, 2023 |title=Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act: A Guide for Consumers |url=https://connlawpc.com/blog/magnuson-moss-warranty-act/ |website= }}</ref> | |||
===Key provisions=== | ===Key provisions=== | ||
Warranty disclosure standards | Warranty disclosure standards | ||
Line 33: | Line 26: | ||
*Damages | *Damages | ||
*Costs and expenses | *Costs and expenses | ||
*Attorney's fees (a significant provision making lawsuits economically viable). | *Attorney's fees (a significant provision making lawsuits economically viable).<ref name=":1"></ref> | ||
Alternative dispute resolution: The FTC encourages informal settlement procedures, though pre-dispute mandatory arbitration clauses are controversial.<ref name=":1"></ref> | Alternative dispute resolution: The FTC encourages informal settlement procedures, though pre-dispute mandatory arbitration clauses are controversial.<ref name=":1"></ref> | ||
===Scope and limitations=== | ===Scope and limitations=== | ||
Line 41: | Line 34: | ||
*Does not preempt state laws, working alongside state lemon laws and UCC provisions.<ref name=":1"></ref><ref name=":2"></ref> | *Does not preempt state laws, working alongside state lemon laws and UCC provisions.<ref name=":1"></ref><ref name=":2"></ref> | ||
==Historical enforcement incidents== | ==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 | *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 | *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 | *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> | *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> | *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> | ||
Line 50: | Line 43: | ||
Toyota held labile 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> | Toyota held labile 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 ( | "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" /> | ||
==References== | ==References== | ||
<references /> | <references /> | ||
[[Category:US legislation]] | [[Category:US legislation]] |