4 ms·

I wasn't aware of that, but perhaps it will hearten you to know that I don't deal with warranty law in my day-to-day. So, I clearly have more to learn - not sur

by clucas 7y ago

I wasn't aware of that, but perhaps it will hearten you to know that I don't deal with warranty law in my day-to-day. So, I clearly have more to learn - not sure why you felt it necessary to call my credentials into question over it though. But in any case, your post does strengthens my main point, which is that fear over surveillance of vehicles by OEMs, with no consumer recourse, is somewhat overblown. EDIT: Just read Magnusson-Moss, and I have a question since you seem to know about it - you said the act "makes it blatantly illegal to 'void' a warranty for any modification, unless it can be proven that the modification caused the issue that the customer is making a warranty claim for." But the act itself says "the warrantor shall not impose any duty other than notification upon any consumer as a condition of securing remedy [...] unless the warrantor has demonstrated [...] that such a duty is reasonable." 15 U.S.C. § 2304(b)(1). Based on what's actually in the text of the law, I could imagine Tesla or some other OE making the argument that it is "reasonable" to condition the warranty on the consumer continuing to feed the stream of telematics data to the OE, because it allows them to identify warranty issues before they require substantial repairs, thus potentially saving significant money for the OE, and significant time for the consumer - certainly a reasonable thing. I personally don't agree with that argument, but I'm curious how you would respond to it, and how you can be sure that a court would shoot it down.

magduf 7y ago
I only questioned your credentials because you said you were in legal counsel, and at an automotive OEM of some kind. Most people who've done any significant DIY car work know about this law, because it's protected them for decades from dealers that would try to deny them warranty coverage for completely unrelated non-dealer repairs or maintenance. For instance, a dealer can't claim that some kind of engine trouble isn't covered because you replaced your own brake pads, or worse, because you replaced the radio. They also can't deny warranty coverage just because you had an independent mechanic work on your car instead of the dealership. Furthermore, they can't require OEM parts to be used, unless they provide them for free. I would have thought anyone working in automotive legal would know about this off the top of their head. As for your example, that sounds pretty contrived and ridiculous to me. Doesn't mean someone might not try it though; companies have tried lots of ridiculous legal tactics before, such as Oracle's current API lawsuit. But I imagine any decent court would shoot it down pretty quickly. Warranty claims are made because parts fail before the warranty expires; the absence of telematics isn't going to magically make some mechanical part fail faster. It might help identify it sooner, sure, but it's still a defective part for failing that quickly, so I don't see how the consumer disabling telematics absolves the manufacturer from covering this. In short, it's never been "reasonable" before this for car companies to have telematics to keep their machines working properly through the warranty period, so why is it suddenly required now? It's not reasonable for anything else either; does a new house need telematics for the house warranty to be valid? How about a blender or toaster in the kitchen? I don't see this argument going far at all.
- clucas 7y ago
  Fair enough. Thanks for the reply, that all makes sense. I have never run into a situation where my current company tried to limit its warranty in legally interesting ways (and it wouldn't necessarily get to my desk anyway), so I never really had call to dig and find Magnusson-Moss. I suspect that knowledge of that law is probably more top-of-mind for DIYers than for OEM lawyers. I still think that whether requiring telematics is a "reasonable" condition for a warranty is more complicated than you think, but what you're saying is exactly the counterargument I would make. And, I hope I've provided some assurance that I am, in fact, a lawyer. Whether I'm a good one is perhaps up for debate. :)

by clucas 7y ago

magduf 7y ago

I only questioned your credentials because you said you were in legal counsel, and at an automotive OEM of some kind. Most people who've done any significant DIY car work know about this law, because it's protected them for decades from dealers that would try to deny them warranty coverage for completely unrelated non-dealer repairs or maintenance. For instance, a dealer can't claim that some kind of engine trouble isn't covered because you replaced your own brake pads, or worse, because you replaced the radio. They also can't deny warranty coverage just because you had an independent mechanic work on your car instead of the dealership. Furthermore, they can't require OEM parts to be used, unless they provide them for free. I would have thought anyone working in automotive legal would know about this off the top of their head. As for your example, that sounds pretty contrived and ridiculous to me. Doesn't mean someone might not try it though; companies have tried lots of ridiculous legal tactics before, such as Oracle's current API lawsuit. But I imagine any decent court would shoot it down pretty quickly. Warranty claims are made because parts fail before the warranty expires; the absence of telematics isn't going to magically make some mechanical part fail faster. It might help identify it sooner, sure, but it's still a defective part for failing that quickly, so I don't see how the consumer disabling telematics absolves the manufacturer from covering this. In short, it's never been "reasonable" before this for car companies to have telematics to keep their machines working properly through the warranty period, so why is it suddenly required now? It's not reasonable for anything else either; does a new house need telematics for the house warranty to be valid? How about a blender or toaster in the kitchen? I don't see this argument going far at all.

clucas 7y ago
Fair enough. Thanks for the reply, that all makes sense. I have never run into a situation where my current company tried to limit its warranty in legally interesting ways (and it wouldn't necessarily get to my desk anyway), so I never really had call to dig and find Magnusson-Moss. I suspect that knowledge of that law is probably more top-of-mind for DIYers than for OEM lawyers. I still think that whether requiring telematics is a "reasonable" condition for a warranty is more complicated than you think, but what you're saying is exactly the counterargument I would make. And, I hope I've provided some assurance that I am, in fact, a lawyer. Whether I'm a good one is perhaps up for debate. :)