Agency Order Requires Grill Maker to Fix Warranty and Come Clean with Customers
July 7, 2022

The Federal Trade Commission is taking action against grill maker Weber-Stephen Products, LLC, for illegally restricting customers’ right to repair their purchased products. The FTC’s complaint charges that Weber’s warranty included terms that conveyed that the warranty is void if customers use or install third-party parts on their grill products. Weber is being ordered to fix its warranty by removing illegal terms and recognizing the right to repair and come clean with customers about their ability to use third-party parts.

“This is the FTC’s third right-to-repair lawsuit in as many weeks,” said Samuel Levine, Director of the FTC’s Bureau of Consumer Protection. “Companies that use their warranties to illegally restrict consumers’ right to repair should fix them now.”

Illinois-based Weber manufactures and sells grills and related products worldwide and offers limited warranties to consumers who buy its products that provide for no-cost repair or replacement, should the products have defects or other issues.

The FTC has made it a priority to protect consumers’ right to repair their products. The Magnuson Moss Warranty Act is one of the FTC’s tools to address repair restrictions. It prohibits a company from conditioning a consumer product warranty on the consumer’s using any article or service which is identified by brand name unless it is provided for free.

Following the FTC’s right to repair report Nixing the Fix, the Commission issued a Policy Statement on Repair Restrictions Imposed by Manufacturers pledging to ramp up investigations into illegal repair restrictions.

The FTC recently announced complaints and orders against Harley-Davidson and the maker of Westinghouse outdoor generators for similar issues.

According to the FTC’s complaint, Weber imposed illegal warranty terms that voided customers’ warranties if they used or installed any third-party parts on their grill products. The FTC alleges that these terms harm consumers and competition in multiple ways, including:

•      Restricting consumers’ choices: Consumers who buy a product covered by a warranty do so to protect their own interests, not the manufacturer’s. Weber’s warranty improperly implied that as a condition of maintaining warranty coverage, consumers had to use the company’s parts.
  

•      Costing consumers more money: By telling consumers their warranty will be voided if they choose third-party parts, Weber forced consumers to use potentially more expensive options provided by Weber itself. This violates the Warranty Act, which prohibits these clauses unless a manufacturer provides the required parts for free under the warranty or is granted an exception from the FTC.
  
•      Undercutting independent businesses: The Warranty Act’s tying prohibition protects not just consumers, but also independent repairers and the manufacturers of aftermarket parts. By conditioning its warranty on the use of Weber-branded parts, Weber infringed the right of independent repairers and manufacturers to compete on a level playing field. 
  
•      Reducing resiliency: Robust competition from aftermarket part manufacturers is critical to ensuring that consumers get the replacement parts they need when they need them and are not at the mercy of branded part supply chains. More resilient and repairable products also lead to less waste in the form of products that could otherwise be fixed. 
  

Enforcement Actions
Under the FTC Act and the Warranty Act, the FTC has the authority to take action against companies violating consumer protection laws, including those engaging in unfair or deceptive acts or practices. The FTC’s order in this case:

• 
  
•      Prohibits further violations: Weber will be prohibited from further violations of the Warranty Act. They will also be prohibited from telling consumers that their warranties will be void if they use third-party parts, or that they should only use Weber-brand parts. If the company violates these terms, the FTC will be able to seek civil penalties of up to $46,517 per violation in federal court.
  

•      Recognizes consumers’ right to repair: Weber will be required to add specific language to its warranty saying, “Using third-party parts will not void this warranty.”
  

•      Comes clean with consumers: Weber must send and post notices informing customers that their warranties will remain in effect even if they use or install third-party parts on their Weber grill products.
  

The Commission vote to issue the administrative complaint and to accept the consent agreement was 5-0. The FTC will publish a description of the consent agreement package in the Federal Register soon. The agreement will be subject to public comment for 30 days, after which the Commission will decide whether to make the proposed consent order final. Instructions for filing comments appear in the published notice. Once processed, comments will be posted on Regulations.gov.

NOTE: The Commission issues an administrative complaint when it has “reason to believe” that the law has been or is being violated, and it appears to the Commission that a proceeding is in the public interest. When the Commission issues a consent order on a final basis, it carries the force of law with respect to future actions. Each violation of such an order may result in a civil penalty of up to $46,517.

Used-Car Certifications Often Not Meaningful
by Anthony Giorgianni
Last updated May 2022

Dealers promise rigorously inspected rides and peace-of-mind warranties, but we found some consumers get rebuilt wrecks and even a former crash-test vehicle.

Most used-car shoppers find the process a stressful ordeal filled with possible perils. They worry they’ll end up with an unreliable vehicle, and they don’t feel comfortable dealing with car salespeople: A 2022 Gallup poll found them to be the second-most-hated profession in the U.S.; only lobbyists fared worse. Worst of all, supply-chain problems for new-car factories have created a surge in demand for used ones—during the first quarter of 2022, average prices for secondhand rides were up 35 percent compared to the previous 12 months. Competition is so stiff that many used cars are purchased sight unseen by desperate buyers.

To reassure used-car buyers worried about getting stuck with a lemon, manufacturers in the 1990s began offering “certified” used cars. They’re marketed as the crème de la crème of the secondhand auto world and even come with manufacturer-backed warranties.


But our research uncovered that certified labels don’t guarantee vehicles won’t have serious hidden mechanical or structural problems. We were astonished by some of the flaws we discovered, many that should have been noticed during promised inspections. We also found certified cars that were totaled wrecks that were rebuilt and resold, and even an SUV previously owned by the government and used in crash tests.


Because manufacturers count on their dealers to conduct the promised inspections needed to certify vehicles, certification labels are only as reliable as the diligence of the dealerships and their mechanics in doing the screening tasks and fixing any problems they find. And our research indicates they’re not always diligent. . . .

(Read the whole thing at https://www.checkbook.org/puget-sound-area/used-car-certifications-often-not-meaningful/)

We’re afraid of warranty stickers, but really, manufacturers should be

written by Kay Kay Clapp Director of Communications at iFixit.

According to a survey published today by consumer group U.S. PIRG, 45 out of 50 appliance manufacturers automatically void the warranty of a device if it has undergone “unauthorized” repair. And worse, they aren’t even upfront about it: 31 of the companies surveyed discourage independent repair in the language of their warranty, but don’t explicitly disclose whether or not doing so actually voids the warranty. PIRG reached out to the customer service teams at each of these organizations and found that 28 of them would still automatically void a warranty. They even included a couple of screenshots from a customer support chat with leading appliance brand Bissel, where they asked point-blank:

“So independent repair would void the warranty?”
“That is correct.”  

Warranty agreements exist largely to give manufacturers a monopoly on repairing your stuff. And their scare tactics are working: When I talk to people—at repair events, on our site, in the comments of our Youtube videos—their number one fear about trying a repair for the first time is that they’re afraid of voiding their warranty. That fear has translated into a fear of fixing our stuff—and it’s become so deeply ingrained in us that we’ve become increasingly disconnected from our stuff.

If I had a nickel for every time I came across a “warranty void if removed” sticker, I could easily buy the newest iPhone. . . .

Most consumers don’t know that these stickers are actually illegal—and that’s because manufacturers don’t want you to [know that]. Under the 1975 Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, the Feds mandated that you can open your electronics without voiding the warranty, regardless of what the language of your warranty says. That makes all of that inconsistent (albeit crafty) language used by the 50 manufacturers surveyed by the U.S. PIRG illegal.

Manufacturers have been waging a quiet war against tinkerers for years. . . .

Up until April of this year, manufacturers have enjoyed this repair-monopoly uncontested. But consumers found their first warranty win when the FTC sent letters to six major manufacturers warning them to knock that “warranty void” s[tuff] off. A small victory in the ongoing battle for the right to fix our stuff, but apparently not enough to scare manufacturers from scaring us out of our right to repair.

We’re lending the FTC a hand in giving those manufacturers a fright—by re-opening our #VoidIfRemoved contest. . . .

We want everyone to know that warranty stickers are just crafty trickery from manufacturers. Don’t fall for it. The Feds have granted you a license to tinker—now let’s make sure we use it.

"Never forget, the law is never settled until it is settled right, it is never right until it is just, and it is never just until it serves society to the fullest."
                                                                                                                                    -- Trial lawyer Harry Philo.