Harley-Davidson Warranty Tying Arrangement Class Action

Harley-Davidson Motor Company Group, LLC makes Harley-Davidson brand motorcycles, along with their parts and accessories. But the complaint for this class action alleges that the company offers warranties that include a tying arrangement, or “unlawful repair restriction” because they require that the warranty will not remain valid unless only an authorized repair service or authorized replacement parts are used for repair.

The class for this action is all those who bought Harley-Davidson-branded products in the US that had warranty provisions that forbid self-repair or the use of unauthorized parts, except where the products were bought for resale. An Arizona subclass has also been defined for in the above class who bought the products in Arizona.

The plaintiff in this case, Jerome Wagner, bought a Harley-Davidson Heritage Classic 114 which the complaint claims had “the unlawful repair restriction attached to the warranty that prohibited him from repairing it.”

The complaint quotes Harley-Davidson’s 2021 warranty as saying, among other things, that the “[u]se of aftermarket performance parts may void all or parts of your limited warranty. See an authorized Harley-Davidson dealer for details” and that “the use of parts and service procedures other than Harley-Davidson approved parts and service procedures may void the limited warranty.”

The complaint points out that this warranty does not set forth exactly what is covered or excluded by the warranty but directs the customer to find out from a Harley-Davidson dealer.

Consumer warranties are regulated by the federal Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act. This act, the complaint claims, “prohibits any warrantor from conditioning a warranty on the consumer’s using, in connection with the warranted product, any article or service (other than an article or service provided without charge under the terms of the warranty) which is identified by brand, trade, or corporate name.”

The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) has made a rule for this law, and the complaint quotes an example it gives of this kind of prohibited warranty: “This warranty is void if service is performed by anyone other than an authorized ‘ABC’ dealer and all replacement parts must be genuine ‘ABC’ parts[.]”

The complaint quotes the FTC as saying this kind of warranty violates the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act in two ways: “First, they violate the … ban against tying arrangements. Second, such provisions are deceptive … because a warrantor cannot, as a matter of law, avoid liability under a written warranty where a defect is unrelated to the use by a consumer of ‘unauthorized’ articles or service.”

The complaint alleges that manufacturers’ use of repair restrictions can be considered an unfair practice under the FTC Act under certain conditions. It quotes the FTC as saying, “Restricting consumers and businesses form choosing how they repair products can substantially increase the total cost of repairs, generate harmful electronic waste, and unnecessarily increase wait times for repairs.”

Article Type: Lawsuit
Topic: Consumer
Tags: Fraud, Fraudulent Omission, Tying Arrangement, Warranty