
FTC Warns It Is Illegal to Condition Warranty on Use of Specified Parts/Services - Deinos
https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/press-releases/2018/04/ftc-staff-warns-companies-it-illegal-condition-warranty-coverage
======
logfromblammo
Previous discussion:
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16803512](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16803512)

Slightly different in that it concerns the use of "warranty void if removed"
seals.

------
ejo4041
I had a Husqvarna lawn edger attachment that broke during the warranty period.
After a back and forth with customer service, their only solution for me was
to bring to an "Authorized repair center". I would have no problem with that
if there wasn't a diagnostic fee, that would be waived if the repair was going
to be covered under warranty, or I would have to pay if it was not. The
potential fee was $50 on a $100 item. The thing is I could literally hold the
broken part in my hand and say "this is what is broken, here is the part
number, is it covered?". They could not answer that unless the repair center
looked at it. It is a known issue with the flex shaft that many people have
documented online. Husq doesn't care, in fact most of their twitter feed is
filled with customer complaints.

Credit Card warranty couldn't help because it was within manufacturer's
warranty.

I got the Attn. General involved who basically arbitrated the conversation,
ultimately did not help one bit. I even cited the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act
mentioned here by the FTC.

This has re-invigorated me to try going down the FTC complaint route. It's not
about the $100 now, it's about Husq standing behind their products and fixing
known issues, and not lying to consumers with BS warranties on the box.

Not helping my case: I bought another one because the attachment is basically
the best on the market. I fully expect the same thing will happen again, armed
myself with a better 3rd party warranty this time. I hope it at least makes it
through 1 season.

~~~
MrMember
I'm glad I don't have any warranty nightmare stories, mine have been
universally painless (mostly for computer parts). I've sent back a couple of
hard drives over the years and I don't think I even had to talk to customer
service for those, the entire process was automated. I had a fairly expensive
mouse bite the dust after six months and that only took a short conversation
with customer service to get the warranty process started.

~~~
verall
Was it a razer chroma or deathadder?

Almost everyone I recommended this mouse to, the wheel broke. Curious if you
had the same experience.

~~~
MrMember
No, it was a Logitech G900.

------
avoutthere
I wonder if Keurig will have to change their brewer warranty:

"Only the use of Keurig® K-Cup® brand pods and accessories will guarantee the
proper functioning and lifetime of your Keurig® brewer. Any damage to or
malfunction of your brewer resulting from the use of non-Keurig® pods and
accessories may not be covered by this warranty or may result in a service fee
if the damage or malfunction is determined to be caused by such use."

[http://support.keurig.com/article?id=kA036000000CJGOCA4](http://support.keurig.com/article?id=kA036000000CJGOCA4)

~~~
lostcolony
That's likely what their legal team decided on, not what they actually enforce
at the customer support level. I've replaced a Keurig. I called them, told
them it was not working when plugged in, they asked I send in the little k-cup
holder, and sent me a replacement unit.

------
AdmiralAsshat
A few years back, there was a well-known issue with HP Touchpads where the
plastic near the speakers would start to crack.[0][1] HP accepted the
Touchpads more or less without question and offered to repair them free of
charge.

After I sent mine in, I got a call several weeks later from an HP employee who
informed me that they had found "third-party firmware" flashed onto the device
(like pretty much everyone who bought a Touchpad after HP discontinued them, I
loaded Android onto it). I argued with him for a few minutes about what
relevance that has to a well-known _hardware defect_ on the device, but he
insisted that flashing a third-party OS voids the warranty. He eventually
agreed to repair it, issuing me a "warning" about future repairs and saying
that they would wipe it and flash a stock image before sending it back to me.

Would the FTC's warning have covered my incident above had HP not eventually
agreed to repair it?

[0][https://forum.xda-
developers.com/showthread.php?t=1250645](https://forum.xda-
developers.com/showthread.php?t=1250645)

[1][https://forum.xda-
developers.com/showthread.php?t=1502123](https://forum.xda-
developers.com/showthread.php?t=1502123)

~~~
Waterluvian
I had almost the exact same experience with my MacBook. I made it into a
hackintosh and later tried to have the keyboard replaced (the white ones that
would stain yellow).

They gave me a hard time about it but ultimately agreed to do so. I think the
store person was just following a script.

~~~
jsight
How can a MacBook be a hackintosh?

~~~
Amelorate
I assume Waterluvian is using the term to refer to a mac laptop with Windows
or Linux installed onto it.

~~~
Waterluvian
Correct. I used the wrong term.

------
QuercusMax
Cool! I own a Traeger wood pellet grill (smoker), and there's a big warning
label that says if I don't use their brand of pellets that my warranty may be
void.

I thought this was pretty much BS, but good to hear officially that this kind
of thing is not OK.

~~~
zdragnar
Two thoughts:

First, using pellets intended for heating rather than cooking is a health
hazard.

Second, low-quality pellets that disintegrate, are improperly sized (aka too
big, clog the auger, too small, cause burn temp inconsistencies) can damage
the machine.

Odds are, it's standard boilerplate to cover them in case you use it
improperly, and would only be invoked if that is obvious upon inspection.

Yeah, the wording sucks, because it seems like they would turn down repairs
that aren't caused by the pellets in use. Maybe there's a better way to word
it- IANAL.

~~~
lr4444lr
But including unenforceable clauses into a contract arguably constitutes a
deliberate attempt to deter the consumer from exercising his rights. That's
what at stake here.

------
decebalus1
Wait, does this mean I can root my Kindle fire and my Android phone without
voiding their warranties?

~~~
gnode
It's an interesting question. I can think of a valid reasons for software
voiding a warranty. E.g. if I use non-recommended software to drive a CNC
machine, and it causes a destructive head crash, or custom engine management
software to make my car go faster and it wears out the engine more quickly.
Increasingly, the integrity of machines is dependent on software.

It may also be unreasonable to put the burden of proof on the warranty issuer,
that the damage was caused by the user's arbitrary choice of software.

If the validity of the warranty clause depends on the extent to which the
software may affect the device's physical integrity, then I can imagine some
manufacturers locking users into their software by making that dependence more
opaque.

~~~
ryandrake
One school of thought is that it’s defective hardware design if well-behaved
software is all that’s keeping hardware from catastrophically failing.

~~~
gnode
Often the line between hardware and software is blurred (is FPGA logic or
processor microcode hardware?). Avoiding catastrophic failure may be a non-
trivial problem. In the example case of a CNC machine, you must avoid putting
too much strain on a tool, or suddenly colliding with the workpiece, thus
requiring knowledge of the workpiece geometry. Software can also be easily
updated to mitigate hardware faults or design problems (e.g. processor bugs).

------
crankylinuxuser
So how does this law interact with garbage products that enforce "Use of
Specified Parts/Services" with DRM?

Better yet, how do we know when its a DRM factor, vs not?

------
bdamm
This seems overly generous to the consumer. If I buy a product such as an
iPad, then break the screen, then replace the screen with an inferior (dimmer,
say) part, can I now claim back to Apple that the product is unsuitable and
expect a replacement within the terms of the warranty?

Even if this is about unrelated parts, such as a battery failure after
replacing the screen, how much effort will it take the manufacturer to a)
ensure that the device has no other less obvious changes and b) ensure that
the parts that were replaced didn't have an unexpected effect? Certainly I've
seen, in manufacturing devices that emit EM, unintended consequences where
parts caused interference significant enough to damage other parts (usually
through unexpected signals.)

It's clearly a win for consumers but I wonder how companies can carry the
burden. Perhaps all-inclusive warranties will fade into history as a result.

~~~
SomeCallMeTim
This is entirely a straw man, and doesn't even represent the reality (or age!)
of the law.

What the law implies is that Apple needs to continue to warrant the REST of
the iPad, even if someone else has done work on the iPad at some point, unless
that work _caused_ the damage being claimed under warranty. They are perfectly
able to say that they won't cover damage caused by you (or, by extension,
anyone you hire to work on your iPad).

If the screen came from another provider, then Apple no longer needs to cover
_the screen_ at all, in fact. That's perfectly legal under current law. But
Apple can't cancel the warranty on the rest of the device if the screen
replacement procedure didn't cause the damage.

If, for instance, the iPad (the one with a replaced screen above) stops
holding any charge after six months due to a faulty battery, and there is no
connection between that new problem and the screen replacement procedure, then
Apple still needs to cover the repair or replacement of the battery.

The problem is that if a competent screen repair voids _all_ warranties, then
you are being forced to go to Apple for all repairs. And that's what is
illegal.

If a car dealer requires that you get the oil changed at a dealer in order to
maintain your warranty, but something completely unrelated fails, they can't
then say "Sorry, your warranty is void because you didn't pay our high
maintenance rates."

That's what the law is about, and it's been that way since 1975 (!!), so I
don't think we're going to suddenly see a drop in all-inclusive warranties
just because the FTC is cracking down on a half dozen companies that aren't in
compliance.

~~~
makomk
This isn't entirely a strawman. One of the things that pretty much all repair
professionals seem to hate is dealing with hardware that people have tried to
fix themselves, especially stuff dating from the days where this was possible,
because it's a huge amount of work to try and figure out what they could've
screwed up. Now every company with a warranty has to either put in that work
or give no-questions-asked warranty replacements to people who damage the
products they sell, and all their other customers have to pay for it.

~~~
SomeCallMeTim
Only for versions of "now" that date back to _1975_ , since that's when the
law was passed.

------
deckar01
The first warranty I checked had clear violations.

> 4.1.1 Exclusions. Customer has no warranty rights with respect to defects or
> non-conformities caused by (i) use of the Products with hardware or software
> that Company has not specified as suitable; ... (v) installation or
> maintenance of Products by someone other than Company; ...

[https://www.seagate.com/css/terms-us/hardware-sales-
terms/](https://www.seagate.com/css/terms-us/hardware-sales-terms/)

~~~
mindB
That's not a violation. It specifically says "caused by". If it said something
like "Customer has no warranty rights wrt defects or non-conformities _if they
've used the product with hardware or software..._", then that would be an
actual violation.

------
m-p-3
I'm wondering how Apple will handle this regarding third-party parts.

~~~
natch
A lot of people don't now that for years (well at least a decade, actually)
Apple policy has been that users can do their own upgrades without voiding the
warranty. For hard drives, example. Obviously this doesn't apply for soldered-
in SSD drives, I'm talking about spinning drives converted to SSD, or capacity
upgrades for those same traditional form factor drives, using third party
drives (well all traditional drives are third party for Apple, but you get the
point).

Apple has a lot more sense than haters give them credit for. Their policies
vary on a case by case basis depending on the specifics of the part and the
potential impacts on important factors like security. For example you don't
want an adversary or an abusive household member being able to install their
own hacked version of the fingerprint sensor hardware on your phone while you
are not looking.

------
blhack
Things are only as strong as the legal cases behind them.

Apple recently told me that my battery, despite being well within it's
advertised number of charge cycles, needed to be replaced, and that it would
cost some absurd amount of money.

This is obviously bait and switch, but am I really going to take them to court
over $300? Just the lost time of filing any paperwork about it would end up
costing me more money.

So yeah, this stuff is all great, but who cares if none of us actually have
the time to take them to court.

~~~
chrischen
$300 to replace battery? I thought battery replacements are $79 and $29 under
their promotional pricing from the controversy? Or did you replace a macbook
battery?

FYI, Apple has replaced things for me out of warranty all the time (macbook
battery, charger, etc, for free). The Genius bar staff have a lot of leeway
and when I'm sitting there I always observe some people being extremely
discourteous or playing obviously dumb, and in response getting completely
different service than what I would normally get.

~~~
blhack
>$300 to replace battery?

Sorry, it was actually $200:
[https://www.apple.com/support/macbookpro/en/battery_body.htm...](https://www.apple.com/support/macbookpro/en/battery_body.html)

~~~
chrischen
If your 2012 macbook is well within the normal amount of charge cycles at this
point then you must not have used it much.

