Anyone Remember Fed's Ruling?

[TIGguy]

Of course, I can't find it...
Anyone remembed the ruling telling Toyota it must provide the consumer filters free if a specific Toyota filter is required in order to keep the warranty valid. I know about the Magnuson-Moss Act, this was a ruling as a result of that law.

 

[ted s]

all that would do is increase the price to include the filters

 

[BigCahuna]

The law was enacted in 1975 as per this link, but it doesn't name any company directly, as why the law was enacted. It covers more then just vehicle issues. Harley was one company that tried to say you have to use "only" their products to keep your warranty intact. The gov. said ,that's fine, you have to supply all the maintenance items free then. They changed their stance on the subject after that. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnuson%E2%80%93Moss_Warranty_Act

 

[d00df00d]

Originally Posted By: ted s
all that would do is increase the price to include the filters

Or simply force the manufacturers to say you don't necessarily need to use OE filters to keep the warranty.

...Which is what they all currently do.

 

[eljefino]

Are you being told you need a filter by a dealer representative? They tend to stretch the truth at times.

The burden of proof should be on them, not you.

 

[NHGUY]

I believe the MM law was because of a dispute a contractor fleet had with CAT over denying warranties on equipment engines when they saw aftermarket (WIX/NAPA??) filters being used instead of genuine CAT.

 

[dnewton3]

Ignore Wiki and go right to the source ...

FTC
http://www.business.ftc.gov/documents/bus01-businesspersons-guide-federal-warranty-law#Magnuson-Moss

What most folks don't understand is that warranty limitations are to protect the OEM, not the consumer. The M/M Act does help define what the responsibilities are regarding warranty provisions and burden of proof.

Regarding your quest, read the info about "tie in sales" in that link.