Under the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, companies that offer warranties for consumer products that cost more than $5 generally can’t condition their warranties on a consumer’s use of any part or service identified by brand name, unless the warranty states that the part or service will be provided for free (or they have a waiver from the FTC). Under the FTC Act, it’s also deceptive for companies to create the misleading impression that a consumer will void their warranty by using unauthorized parts or service.

Letters to four air purifier sellers and one treadmill manufacturer raise concerns about the companies’ statements that consumers must use specified parts or service providers to keep their warranties valid. And letters to three companies that sell computer equipment raise concerns about stickers stating that a warranty will be void if the sticker is removed, when the inability to remove the sticker would prevent consumers from performing routine maintenance and repairs.

The letters include this warning: “This letter places you on notice that violations of the Warranty and FTC Acts may result in legal action. FTC investigators have copied and preserved the online pages in question, and we plan to review your company’s written warranty and promotional materials after 30 days.” Recipients of the letters should certainly review their warranty practices to ensure they comply with the law. And if you haven’t checked your practices recently, maybe you should, too.

Bass Pro sells a product called “RedHead® Lifetime Guarantee All-Purpose Socks.” As the name suggests, the company prominently advertises that the socks are subject to a lifetime guarantee and that “if they wear out, they get replaced.” In a YouTube video, a store manager elaborates on that, saying: “If anything ever happens — if the dryer steals one of them on you — you bring the other one in, and we give you a brand new pair of socks.”

Whether or not our man in Missouri had socks stolen by his dryer we may never know, but we do know that he took advantage of the lifetime guarantee a number of times since 2015, “typically 2-4 pair at a time.” Each time, Bass Pro replaced the socks with new socks that were subject to the same lifetime guarantee. That changed last year, though, when he attempted to exchange four pairs of socks. This time, he was given “distinctively-marked 60-Day Socks.”

(If you’re not sure what you’re wearing, glance down towards your calves. If you see a “distinctive stripe pattern” on your socks, that could be a warning that they’re just 60-Day Socks. Tread carefully.)

The lawsuit alleges that Bass Pro has engaged in false advertising and that it failed to honor its warranty. Although it’s too early to tell how this case will turn out, this lawsuit is worth contemplating for any company that is considering a lifetime warranty. A lifetime warranty may be a big selling point but, as the saying (sort of) goes: “With big selling points come big responsibilities.” Absent any clear disclosures, those responsibilities could last a lifetime.

According to the FTC, Weber’s warranty included terms that conveyed that the warranty is void if customers use or install third-party parts on their grill products. For example, the warranty on certain Summit grills stated: “[t]he use and/or installation of parts on your WEBER products that are not genuine WEBER parts will void this warranty, and any damages that result hereby are not covered by this warranty.”

As we noted in our previous post, these types of restrictions violate the Magnuson Moss Warranty Act, which broadly prohibits companies from conditioning a consumer product warranty on the consumer’s use of any article or service which is identified by brand name unless it is provided for free. Companies can, however, exclude warranty coverage for defects or damage caused by unauthorized parts or service.

As with the Harley-Davidson and Westinghouse settlements, Weber is prohibited from telling consumers that their warranties will be void if they use third-party parts, or that they should only use Weber-brand parts. Weber will be required to add specific language to its warranty saying, “Using third-party parts will not void this warranty.” If the company violates these terms, the FTC will be able to seek civil penalties of up to $46,517 per violation in federal court.

Companies that offer product warranties should take a close look at their warranty terms and related communications to ensure that they comply with the Magnuson Moss Warranty Act and developing federal and state laws specific to right to repair. We’re likely to see more of these actions on the federal and state levels.

According to the FTC, Harley-Davidson and Westinghouse both included illegal terms that voided warranties if customers used anyone other than the companies and their authorized dealers to get parts or repairs for their products. For example, a Harley warranty encouraged consumers to “insist that your authorized Harley-Davidson dealer uses only genuine Harley-Davidson replacement parts and accessories to keep your Harley-Davidson motorcycle and its limited warranty intact.”

These types of restrictions violate the Magnuson Moss Warranty Act, which broadly prohibits companies from conditioning a consumer product warranty on the consumer’s use of any article or service which is identified by brand name unless it is provided for free. Companies can, however, exclude warranty coverage for defects or damage caused by unauthorized parts or service.

Under the terms of the settlements, the companies are prohibited from telling consumers that their warranties will be void if they use third-party services or parts, or that they should only use branded parts or authorized service providers. Moreover, the companies both agreed to affirmatively inform consumers of their rights. For example, warranties must disclose that “taking your product to be serviced by a repair shop that is not affiliated with or an authorized dealer of [Company] will not void this warranty. Also, using third-party parts will not void this warranty.”

While the FTC took action under existing law, federal and state legislatures continue efforts to pass legislation specific to right to repair. For example, earlier this month New York passed the first “right to repair” bill that requires all manufacturers of “digital electronic equipment” to make available to consumers and repair shops the information, tools, and spare parts needed to fix covered devices.

Companies that offer product warranties should take a close look at their warranty terms and related communications to ensure that they comply with the Magnuson Moss Warranty Act and developing federal and state laws specific to right to repair. We’re likely to see more of these actions on the federal and state levels.

For 40 years, manufacturers of certain consumer products have been required to include warranty terms on a printed document. (Check your car’s glove compartment, for example.) The new law now permits manufacturers to post warranty information online, instead. Manufacturers who do that will have to provide a URL to the warranty terms, either on the product, its package, or its manual. They must also provide a non-Internet based method of obtaining the terms, such as a phone number or mailing address.

The FTC's Rule on Pre-Sale Availability of Written Warranty Terms still requires that written warranties on consumer products costing more than $15 be available to consumers before they buy. Now, this requirement can also be satisfied by providing electronic access to the terms prior to sale.

The new law requires the FTC to revise its rules within one year, so stay tuned for future developments.

Under the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act (“Act”), a company that provides a warranty cannot condition that warranty on the purchase of parts or services from a particular company. According to the FTC’s complaint, the MINI Division warranty violated the Act because (1) it was conditioned on whether consumers used genuine MINI parts and dealers to perform maintenance and repair work and (2) there was a charge for the parts and services.

The proposed consent order prohibits BMW from requiring that car owners have maintenance performed by MINI Division dealers or with MINI parts as a condition of the warranty, unless BMW provides the part or service without charge. The agreement also prohibits BMW from indicating that car owners must have maintenance performed by MINI Division dealers or with MINI parts so that their vehicles operate safely or maintain their value.

This is the first auto warranty related enforcement action by the FTC in several years and a reminder to all companies offering a warranty to revisit their terms to ensure they do not impose similar conditions.