Why YSK: When I am cracking open an electronic item for repair or harvest, I often run into sternly-worded stickers which warn me that if I go any further “Your warranty may be voided”. This is generally not true, per the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act.
Ref: https://www.ifixit.com/News/11748/warranty-stickers-are-illegal
Introduced: Sponsor: Rep. Jared Huffman [D-CA2]
This bill was referred to the House Committee on Agriculture and House Committee on Natural Resources which will consider it before sending it to the House floor for consideration.
Rep. Jared Huffman [D-CA2] is a member of the House Committee on Natural Resources.
If you did, what was the story and outcome? Did you actually go to court, or was the threat good enough to get them to reconsider? Just curious, as I constantly see people say it's safe to modify your car under warranty since the act supposedly protects them. Saying things like "oh if you get new downpipes and your engine explodes, you're fine because they're not related". Seems like a foolhardy way to fuck yourself over when something does go wrong, dealer denies the claim due to mod, and now you're going to have to dispute it in court.
(Texas) Are there any circumstances in which a small business (sole proprietor/partnerships and the like) would be considered a consumer under the Magnuson Moss Act?
Such as;
Products used for operating the business (not used to produce other consumer goods?)
What about products that can be purchased by both regular consumers and businesses? Even if there is a purchase agreement between businesses?
What about products purchased and used by an agricultural small business?
https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/yw9qk7/macbook-pro-software-locks-prevent-independent-repair
Apple is preparing to roll out a function where any third party repairs of an Apple device would cause that device to kill itself. Is this illegal under the Magnuson-Moss warranty act? To use a direct parallel, could car dealerships add a similar function whereby taking a car somewhere else for repair would result in the car actively rendering itself inoperable?
2019 Subaru Crosstrek Premium. First time Subaru owner. San Jose, CA United States
Since i've owned the car I always heard a faint popping noise from the drivers side front end. I mentioned it to the dealership in passing while I was in having them look at an issue with my A/C unit not getting cold (this was one week after purchasing the vehicle). They said it was normal function for the car. This was 8 or so months ago. Came in for another warranty repair on my A/C since a friend and I discovered some fluid on my firewall near the A/C. The shop actually did diagnostics at this point and found that 3 o-rings were faulty. During this visit they noted the clicking sound and stated that it is normal operation of the car to have such noise, or stated it was due to aftermarket parts being installed. I added new wheels, springs and spacer blocks to my suspension, the sound persists.
I went to dealership yesterday to have them listen for the sound and the mechanic confirmed what I was hearing. They came back to me and said that they can't do any diagnostics or repairs on my shocks or struts until the car is put back to stock. They said contact Subaru of America and ask if they will cover putting the car back to stock, then they will look at it. Subaru of America is backing the dealership's decision to not investigate my car until it is put back to stock. This would require me to pay money for the dealership to put stock parts back on and then pay again to have my desired parts returned to the vehicle. Their claim is that they can't prove that their part is faulty until after market parts are taken off the car.
Is the dealership by law allowed to claim that my aftermarket parts made this shock go bad without investigating? They missed the A/C diagnosis the first time and they missed diagnosing the noise. While investigating myself I found a lot of rust and small corrosion under the dust cap of the shock. In the 2018 models they had a warranty issue for this exact problem (Technical bulletin 05-62-18). Common sense tells me that wheels, springs and lift spacers can in no way cause rust to happen. Can they state as matter of fact without investigating?
So now I am lost and not sure how to pursue the next steps in this process. I did find that the FTC states "simply using an aftermarket or recycled part does not void your warranty. The Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act makes it illegal for companies to void your warranty or deny coverage under the warranty simply be
... keep reading on reddit ➡So, me and this gentleman had this small conversation on one of the threads:
https://www.reddit.com/r/assholedesign/comments/etui1i/by_opening_the_envelope_for_the_license_agreement/ffip0bm/
And since I'm not a lawyer and don't get legal jargon, I couldn't get a decisive answer. But my curiosity got me so I decided to ask.
The question shortly is, you know those "Breaking this seal voids your warranty" stickers that you get on electronics? Are they considered a tie-in warranty and thus are illegal according to Magnuson-Moss warranty act 1975? Or am I getting something wrong?
Edit: an edit for the bot, let's assume I live in TX, Also added flair
As I am steaming mad about my warranty being voided due to Gigabyte's shenanigans. I researched my rights and found this.
I Overloaded44, am not a lawyer.
Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act 1975
The Act and the Rules establish three basic requirements that may apply to you, either as a warrantor or a seller.
-
As a warrantor, you must designate, or title, your written warranty as either "full" or "limited"
-
As a warrantor, you must state certain specified information about the coverage of your warranty in a single, clear, and easy-to read document.
-
As a warrantor or a seller, you must ensure that warranties are available where your warranted consumer products are sold so that consumers can read them before buying.
Gigabyte doesnt comply with any of the 3 basic bullet points. You must email/call Gigabyte for their warranty information.
All other GPU brands seem to have this information readily available.
Further it states that the burden of proof about voiding my warranty rests on Gigabyte.
- Have you found out how that burned pin constitutes physical damage?
- Can you find a PUBLIC posting of the Gigabyte Warranty for GPUs?
This question revolves around the Macrumors article about Linus Sebastian and his attempts to get his iMac Pro fixed, I’m sure we’re all aware of. The article I’m referring to is here: https://www.macrumors.com/2018/04/18/linus-tech-tips-imac-pro-repair-video/
The paragraph in question goes as follows: “MacRumors contacted a reliable source who confirmed that Apple Authorized Service Providers are permitted to deny service for any product that has been opened or modified by a customer, regardless of warranty, both for safety reasons and to avoid responsibility if the machine cannot be fixed.”
Now I can grasp the concept of opening it yourself, and breaking it, and getting turned away. Fair enough. And I know that he's from Canada, but does this apply to the US as well? Can someone explain if simply opening a product, but NOT causing any damage, leading to a denied repair service would violate the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act? This is similar to the whole “Warranty void if sticker removed” shenanigans that was stated being illegal by the FTC. Except in Apple’s case rather than using a sticker, any signs of opening is considered “warranty void”.
This worries me as someone who has bought Windows laptops their entire life, but is considering getting a MacBook. Someone also, who builds and repairs PCs on their own, fully understanding the risks of doing so, but wishes to keep that freedom to maintain the products (example being dust cleaning) I’ve purchased. A freedom I had previously thought, was protected by law. I’d be interested to hear if anyone knows the answer to this, thanks!
First, some background: My lab (in Washington State) purchased a piece of equipment (value around $80,000, from a Danish company with a sales office in the US) four years ago. It is normal for for this type of equipment to be in use 24 hours/day and for this type of equipment it can be reasonably expected for it to last at least a few thousand hours before needing service. I don't believe that this equipment would be classified as a consumer product under the Magnuson-Moss act.
The equipment has broken down every couple hundred hours of use in exactly the same way. Rather than a physical defect in the equipment, it seems to be some kind of electronic issue; basically there's a false alarm on a safety relay which requires the manufacturer to do a hard reset, which involves us shipping the equipment back to the factory in Europe.
The issue: Time and time again (now up to 6 times), the manufacturer seems to have done the exact same thing to "fix" the problem with out addressing the underlying cause, and almost like clockwork, after a fairly small amount of use, it breaks again in the exact same way. If this were a consumer product, the Magnuson-Moss act would allow us to request a full refund of the system. My question is this: is there similar law that applies to commercial/industrial products, that would allow us to request a refund? Alternatively, is there any law that requires a manufacturer to extend a warranty under the condition of a repeated malfunction that they can't sufficiently correct? Is there any way to compel the manufacturer to do a better job addressing the issue or address it more aggressively/try new approaches? Thanks in advance!
Hey guys, I was wondering if you all could help me out here. I had a Radeon R9 280x that suddenly stopped working. I wasn't getting any signal to my monitor. I found out it was my display drivers. During the process of trying to find out what was wrong with it, I had a friend who works with computers look at it. During that time, he replaced the thermal paste. We found out it was the display drivers, found that my warranty was still good for another year, and I created an RMA request for Gigabyte.
I sent my graphics card back to Gigabyte, and when I checked my RMA status, I saw that they voided my warranty. When I called to ask why, they said it was because I had re-applied thermal paste. More specifically, in the e-mail they sent, it said, "Due to unauthorized repair, the warranty on this gigabyte product is voided and the item is being returned as is. UNAUTHORIZED MODIFICATION BY USER (Tampering and Non Stock Thermal compound) Due to this unauthorized repair, repairs to the product cannot be made to correct the problem."
I told this to my friend, who replaced the thermal paste, and he told me that they couldn't do this. That it was a violation of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, which basically says they can't void a warranty just because it wasn't serviced by them. I e-mailed Gigabyte back, saying, "I don't believe you can invalidate my warranty for any service done on the card that wasn't by you. It is a violation of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, if I am not mistaken. The act says that you are not the only company allowed to service the card. Please correct me if I am mistaken.".
It's been radio silence since then. Am I in the wrong? I'm not really sure what to do here. If I'm wrong, please tell me. If I'm right, what should I do? I'd like to call them to discuss it, but I'm not a very aggressive person and I'm not really sure how to go abouts talking to Gigabyte about it. I am currently waiting out a transfer between jobs and can hardly afford my car, and as much as I like playing video games, I also need my computer for school -- I'm working on a computer science degree next semester.
TL;DR: I replaced the thermal paste on my graphics card and Gigabyte voided my warranty. Is this a violation of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty act?
https://www.ifixit.com/News/11748/warranty-stickers-are-illegal
Thought you all might be interested in this!
Introduced: Sponsor: Sen. Ron Wyden [D-OR]
This bill was referred to the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation which will consider it before sending it to the Senate floor for consideration.
