From the FTC's Consumer Alert.The Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act makes it illegal for companies to void your warranty or deny coverage under the warranty simply because you used an aftermarket part.
Still, if it turns out that the aftermarket part was itself defective or wasn't installed correctly, and it causes damage to another part that is covered under the warranty, the manufacturer or dealer has the right to deny coverage for that part and charge you for any repairs.
What its saying is if you install a turbo they can not void engine warranty unless they can prove that the turbo caused the problem.
Lets say you installed HIDS. And you keep getting a blown fuse because of it and the battery drains. The Dealer legally doesn't have to replace your battery underwarranty because of the Aftermarket Part.
Lets say you install Intake and a motor mount breaks. They have to prove that the intake made the motor mount break.
The key point is your warranty is not voided due to aftermarket parts but if a person adds a turbo and goes too far with the boost that blows the engine I would bet they have an out.
I suspect that the Turbokits turbo includes several necessary parts to upgrade other parts as needed. I am sure Turbokits will confirm this.
This is my opinion only.
Thats been around if im not mistaken...
I think TK.com is just trying to upsell their stuff!
It clearly states that if the after market part caused the damage, then the dealer can refuse to repair it.
I think it's an epic win! No more fear of voiding our warranties!
I think this was enacted in 1975.
Its cool but I don't know that its a big win. I don't believe that FTC Consumer Alerts are a binding authority in the US. Please correct me if I am wrong.the FTC just ruled on it and backed the ACT. It's a big win for the aftermarket performance enthusiast!
I am a Service Manager for another manufacturer (not Kia), a Kia owner and an avid car enthusiast who has owned a fair share of modified vehicles. I have also been involved in a few warranty “denials” involving customers.You nailed it. The ruling states the burden of proof is on the MANUFACTURER to prove that the aftermarket part caused the issue you are trying to get covered under warranty. Secondly, that they can't just void your complete warranty over any one aftermarket part. Also, the Manufacturers were trying to argue over the definition of aftermarket parts. The FTC ruling makes it clear that "aftermarket" means any part not made by the original manufacturer.
I would suggest everyone read through the Magnuson–Moss Warranty Act and the FTC ruling.
There is a huge misconception that adding aftermarket parts gives the MANUFACTURER the right to void your complete warranty. We get questions like that on a daily basis. What the act says is the MANUFACTURER not only has to prove that the aftermarket part caused the issue, but if they do prove it, they can only refuse to cover the failed part. They can't just void your warranty completely.
The ACT is from 1975, the FTC just ruled on it and backed the ACT. It's a big win for the aftermarket performance enthusiast!
Good write-up...just to make it clear about the Magnusson-Moss Act -- this deals with replacing normal wear-and-tear items like spark plugs, belts, filters, mufflers, tires, batteries, fuel, oil, etc. - the dealer cannot void your warranty for using aftermarket replacement parts instead of buying the manufacturers replacement parts. It does not mean you can install a turbo and expect the manufacturer to replace the engine - or tranny if you blow up either. Basically if you alter the way the car is sold to you or add power-adders they can void a warranty. If you think you can just get a lawyer to fight them...well...good luck in even finding a lawyer to take your case!The Magnuson–Moss Warranty Act was initially enacted to protect customers who used non-original equipment/manufacturer parts during the repair or servicing of their vehicle from losing their warranty coverage.
Bingo, hit the nail on the head.I am a Service Manager for another manufacturer (not Kia), a Kia owner and an avid car enthusiast who has owned a fair share of modified vehicles. I have also been involved in a few warranty “denials” involving customers.
Just to clarify on this a bit, dealers do not provide warranties, or deny warranties, the manufacturer does. Dealer service departments are paid to perform warranty repairs by the manufacturer and must follow the steps the manufacturer requires in order to get paid for each warranty repair. Most dealerships and technicians really don't care if a car is modded or not, but they do want to be sure they get paid for whatever repairs are performed.
Under Federal Law, there are only a few things that can cause a warranty to be completely "voided"; if the vehicle is/was declared a total loss, if the vehicle was in a flood or submersed in water or if the vehicle's federally required emission control devices (Catalytic Converters, ECM) have been altered or removed.
Most manufacturers warranty's only cover defects in material and/or workmanship and manufacturers spend millions of dollars testing their products under purposely stressful conditions and have very clear evidence as to what causes every type of component failure you could imagine. This also means they normally already have the "proof" necessary to deny a warranty repair for a failure that is not caused by a defect or workmanship problem.
Most manufacturers will also pay a dealer service department to perform the necessary diagnostics to find the root cause of a failure, as they do not want a legal battle over a legitimate warranty claim. If the cause is determined to not be warranty, then any repair or reassembly costs are the responsibility of the owner.
The Magnuson–Moss Warranty Act was initially enacted to protect customers who used non-original equipment/manufacturer parts during the repair or servicing of their vehicle from losing their warranty coverage.
The consumer alerts themselves are not binding, but the rulings that they advertise are.. the Federal Trade Commission is an independent executive agency/rulemaking authority. It is given executive powers over certain areas (trade, consumer affairs, quality control + safety) by congress. Kinda like FCC or SEC.Its cool but I don't know that its a big win. I don't believe that FTC Consumer Alerts are a binding authority in the US. Please correct me if I am wrong.
Now I have read the act and it doesn't actually mention after market parts. Case law over the last 35 years is probably what established the idea that after market parts should not void the warranty; however I haven't researched it. If anyone has read the cases please let me know because I would love to read them.