California Law

Status
Not open for further replies.
Joined
Oct 25, 2017
Messages
431
Location
A Highway Near You
Noticed this on a PDS for an ATF where the product was "suitable" for some specs (like MB 236.12 etc). The suitable spec numbers all had an asterisk behind them that led to this...

*California law prohibits all manufacturers of
multi-vehicle ATF from recommending products
in certain applications where the viscometrics do
not match those of the official OEM specification.
Therefore, XXXXX does not recommend the use
of XXXXX Multi-Vehicle ATF in
these applications in California.

Wasn't surprised it was the California govt rushing in to save us from such perils
smirk.gif
...but today was the first time I'd seen anything like this.
 
Same thing with Maxlife, it doesn't qualify as Mercon V here in California. In our computers at the parts store it says "in California, recommend Valvoline Mercon V instead" or something.
 
Last edited:
Before this spirals into a thread along a "It's OK if to lie because it's a free market" to "The Commies are taking over" axis, just remember.....John Q. Public needs a little info.
They're not as smart as us BITOGers.
 
It’s California where they know better than you. Everything causes cancer and certain items will need to be smuggled in.
 
It’s too bad this is necessary, but the range of “ suitable for” listings across wide vicosities and frictional characteristics make me see the point.
 
I can see why they did it since you have some blenders throwing out tons of specs without backing them up. Too bad they had to make a law about it but when the industry does not do the right thing, they have to.
 
Originally Posted By: dogememe
SIn our computers at the parts store it says "in California, recommend Valvoline Mercon V instead" or something.
Except Valvoline does not have a Mercon V that is approved or licensed by Ford. Their product is called "ATF for Mercon V Applications" because they can't legally call it "Mercon V" due to it not being licensed.
 
As an ex-Southern Californian, I can tell you there are many unenforceable laws on the books. There is a law that says you can only buy a car warranty from a Dealer located in the state. You can't buy one online, which I have done several times.

There isn't any transmission fluid Police nor car warranty Police. So - if you some how have the ("non-spec'ed) fluid in your garage-don't worry about it.


I'm so glad I'm out of that crazy state.
 
Last edited:
As long it's understood this law is about having the information label on the product only, not that you can't buy it and use it however you please. Drink it, no one will stop you. Or probably care. It's not more than what it is, a warning label. Seems good to know "the viscometrics do not match those of the official OEM specification."
So people think the state of Calif is preventing you from buying this fluid? That's amazing reading.
laugh.gif
 
You know goodtimes-I might have misread the original post. But I just moved out of So-Cal after 50 years. So you and I both know what kind of "crazy laws"/policies are sitting on the books.

IF I sighted all of them (which I won't) that would be "amazing reading"-really.
 
Originally Posted By: Chris142
Can't buy non detergent oil here either.


You can buy all the non detergent motor oil you want at Walmart or a million places. I saw it there last week. When you say "either" you must really think them requiring a label telling you the oils don't meet all specs means they are holding you down so you can't buy it. The label is a good thing, glad they require it.
 
You probably won't get much of an argument from most people that California is over-regulated on a few fronts, but some of these warning labels serve a good purpose as an identifier and differentiator of the product that wouldn't ordinarily be there. This ATF description is a good example.

The warning label on some Trader Joe's Ginger I bought came with a Prop 65 warning label because there were more than trace amounts of lead in it...or the imported Moroccan sardines I buy at the 99 Cent store that are listed as "Prop 65-compliant" where the Chinese sardines don't have this designation and might have to be taken off the shelf in late August so they can add the warning label...in the mean time someone's eaten them, etc. On some of these items, you might look at it as a combination of saving us from ourselves and actually providing useful information for the consumer.
 
SO what if they DONT recommend it? that didnt say its unlawful. why are they wasting tax money on what oil to use?
 
Nothing wrong with it.
As far as I remember everyone on BITOG likes to point to Germany and synthetic oils regulations.
There is always case that govt. (people) like to over-regulate, but then also remember Deepwater Horizon, VW diesels, GM ignition locks etc, etc.
 
A similar Cali* notation required for Maxlife ATF for Dex II/III applications, an old and easily met spec now.

To quote MolaKule's comment about the Cali * notation posted HERE...

"The PQIA history and the California statement are non sequitur."
 
Originally Posted By: RF Overlord
Originally Posted By: dogememe
SIn our computers at the parts store it says "in California, recommend Valvoline Mercon V instead" or something.
Except Valvoline does not have a Mercon V that is approved or licensed by Ford. Their product is called "ATF for Mercon V Applications" because they can't legally call it "Mercon V" due to it not being licensed.


True that, but I wasn't at work so I was recalling the message from memory. It actually really bothers me that the Valvoline "ATF for Mercon V applications" isn't licensed. I refuse to use it, which is silly because I like Valvoline and I have a Ford that calls for it...
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top