The Federal Trade Commission announced that it sent warning letters to several companies about their warranty practices, outlining concerns about certain representations made by the companies regarding their warranty coverage plans. Such representations, assert staff, stand in the way of consumers' right to repair products they have purchased and could violate the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act (the "Warranty Act"), a law that governs consumer product warranties and, among other things, establishes disclosure standards for written warranties.
The letters to five of the companies — air purifier sellers aeris Health, Inc., Blueair, Inc., Medify Air LLC, and Oransi LLC, as well as treadmill company InMovement LLC — take issue with alleged express and implied representations that consumers must use specified parts or service providers to keep their warranties intact. As stated in the warning letters, the Warranty Act "prohibits warrantors of consumer products costing more than five dollars from conditioning their written warranties on a consumer's use of any article or service, such as repair service, which is identified by brand, trade, or corporate name, unless (1) the warranty states the article or service will be provided to the consumer for free, or (2) the warrantor has been granted a waiver by the Commission." Similarly, the FTC asserts that such representations might be deceptive under the FTC Act.
Warning letters to several other entities — ASRock Inc., ZOTAC USA Inc., and G.B.T. Inc., companies that market and sell gaming PCs, graphics chips, motherboards and other accessories— express concerns with their alleged use of product stickers containing "warranty void if removed" or similar language that hinder consumers' ability to perform routine maintenance and repairs.
The letters state that FTC staff will review the companies' written warranty and promotional materials after 30 days, and they place recipients on formal notice that violations of the Warranty Act and the FTC Act may result in legal action seeking injunctive and monetary remedies based on past or future violations. Staff specifically notes that the FTC has previously brought actions against companies for similar types of violations.
This alert provides general coverage of its subject area. We provide it with the understanding that Frankfurt Kurnit Klein & Selz is not engaged herein in rendering legal advice, and shall not be liable for any damages resulting from any error, inaccuracy, or omission. Our attorneys practice law only in jurisdictions in which they are properly authorized to do so. We do not seek to represent clients in other jurisdictions.
This post first appeared in Frankfurt Kurnit's Focus on the Data blog (www.focusonthedata.com). It provides general coverage of its subject area. We provide it with the understanding that Frankfurt Kurnit Klein & Selz is not engaged herein in rendering legal advice, and shall not be liable for any damages resulting from any error, inaccuracy, or omission. Our attorneys practice law only in jurisdictions in which they are properly authorized to do so. We do not seek to represent clients in other jurisdictions.
Originally published by the New York Legal Ethics Reporter
This alert provides general coverage of its subject area. We provide it with the understanding that Frankfurt Kurnit Klein & Selz is not engaged herein in rendering legal advice, and shall not be liable for any damages resulting from any error, inaccuracy, or omission. Our attorneys practice law only in jurisdictions in which they are properly authorized to do so. We do not seek to represent clients in other jurisdictions.
This alert provides general coverage of its subject area. We provide it with the understanding that Frankfurt Kurnit Klein & Selz is not engaged herein in rendering legal advice, and shall not be liable for any damages resulting from any error, inaccuracy, or omission. Our attorneys practice law only in jurisdictions in which they are properly authorized to do so. We do not seek to represent clients in other jurisdictions.
