Jump to content

Magnuson–Moss Warranty Act

From Consumer_Action_Taskforce

⚠️ Article status notice: This article has been marked as incomplete

This article needs additional work to meet the wiki's Content Guidelines and be in line with our Mission Statement for comprehensive coverage of consumer protection issues.

This notice will be removed once sufficient documentation has been added to establish the systemic nature of these issues. Once you believe the article is ready to have its notice removed, visit the discord and post to the #appeals channel.

Learn more ▼

TODO: Would like someone to look over the law's textand give a more robust summary; until then the summary is from Wikipedia.

Summary[edit | edit source]

The Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act of 1975 is a federal law enacted in the United States. The law sets some of the rules that manufacturers must follow when giving warranties, if they choose to provide one. Some of the rules are (may not be legally valid; consult legal experts for specifics):

  • Warranties must be specified in clear language.
  • It is prohibited to require only "branded parts" as a requirement for a warranty.
  • There are additional requirements imposed upon manufacturers if they choose to advertise a "full warranty."
  • prevents manufactures from using misleading or unfair disclaimers to circumvent their warranty obligations.
    • one example of such disclaimers is "warranty void if removed stickers" [1]

In cases of violation, consumers are encouraged to negotiate with warrantors under arbitration. Additionally, the federal government and consumers are able to file civil suits in the courts.

History of Enforcement[edit | edit source]

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 labile for all damages in used car's in-warranty repair case - June 16, 1992. [2]

"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[2]

References[edit | edit source]

  1. "Warranty Void Stickers Are Illegal in the US. What about Elsewhere?" - archive.org - archived 2025-01-29
  2. 2.0 2.1 "Ismael v. Goodman Toyota" - archive.org - archived 2025-01-29