Originally Posted by 1sexyfd
TrackRat is correct in this matter. I’ve read a lot about our warranty on this board lately and thought I could maybe help clear up the issue. Our warranty explicitly states on the first page of our Service and Warranty Information pamphlet:
“Damage which results from negligence,
improper operation of the vehicle, wear and
tear or deterioration due to driving habits or
conditions, improper repair, environmental
influences, flood, accident or fire damage, road
salt corrosion, alteration, installation of
non-genuine BMW accessories, or use of
improper, poor quality or contaminated fuel”
The warranty does not apply to (among other things) damage that results from improper repair or maintenance, or modification of the car or installation of any performance components which (i) alters the original engineering or operating specifications or (ii) results in damage to other original components of the car (including such things as electrical shorts, water leaks, etc.).
In essence, under the Magnuson-Moss act, a manufacturer is permitted to clearly state that the addition of aftermarket equipment that improves performance will void the warranty. I think the addition of that kind of aftermarket equipment is different from requiring you to have routine maintenance performed by a BMW dealer (which would not be permitted under the Act).
Even placing a K&N filter on your car can void the warranty, even though K&N states this very same Act. The difference lies in the fact our maintenance is free.
In part, in Title 15, United States Code, Section 2302, subdivision (c), as follows:
“No warrantor of a consumer product may condition his written or implied warranty of such product on the consumer's using, in connection with such product, any article or service (other than article or service provided without charge under the terms of the warranty) which is identified by brand, trade, or corporate name; except that the prohibition of this subsection may be waived by the [Federal Trade] Commission if –
(1) the warrantor satisfies the Commission that the warranted product will function properly only if the article or service so identified is used in connection with the warranted product, and
(2) the Commission finds that such a waiver is in the public interest. The Commission shall identify in the Federal Register, and permit public comment on, all applications for waiver of the prohibition of this subsection, and shall publish in the Federal Register its disposition of any such application, including the reasons therefore.”
Under this federal statute, a manufacturer, who issues a warranty on your motor vehicle, is prohibited from requiring you to use a particular brand of air filter, oil filter, or other service or maintenance item, unless such item is provided, free of charge, under your warranty or unless the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) waives this prohibition against the manufacturer.
The rules and regulations adopted by the FTC, to govern the interpretation and enforcement of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, are set forth in the Code of Federal Regulations, Title 16 - Commercial Practices, Chapter I - Federal Trade Commission, Subchapter G - Rules, Regulations, Statements and Interpretations Under the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, Part 700 - Interpretations Under the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act. Contained within these rules and regulations is Section 700.10, which states, in relevant part as follows:
“(c) No warrantor may condition the continued validity of a warranty on the use of only authorized repair service and/or authorized replacement parts for non-warranty service and maintenance. For example, provisions such as, "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," and the like, are prohibited where the service or parts are not covered by the warranty. These provisions violate the Act in two ways. First, they violate the section 102(c) ban against tying arrangements. Second, such provisions are deceptive under section 110 of the Act, 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. This does not preclude a warrantor from expressly excluding liability for defects or damage caused by such "unauthorized" articles or service; nor does it preclude the warrantor from denying liability where the warrantor can demonstrate that the defect or damage was so caused.”
|