[M.D. Holloway]

Richard,
Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act - Warranties that specify a particular brand name product for validity purposes must also provide that product at no charge. Obviously, most OEM’s do not provide maintenance products for free.

The most common way for a warranty to be valid is for the OEM to state that the product must meet industry accepted minimum specifications. If a product meets or exceeds these specifications, then the warranty is valid.

Therefore, warranties are not voided simply by the use of a particular brand. OEM’s with a major manufacturer listed are not endorsing such brands, but simply have chosen them because they are well known and meet their minimum required specifications.

Here is something I found:

FEDERAL WARRANTY LAW
“Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act”
from the
Federal Trade Commission

700.10 Section 102 (c).
(a) Section 102 (c) prohibits tying arrangements that condition
coverage under a written warranty on the consumer’s use of an
article or service identified by brand, trade, or corporate name
unless that article or service is provided without charge to the
consumer.

(b) Under a limited warranty that provides only for replacement of
defective parts and no portion of labor charges, section 102 (c)
prohibits a condition that the consumer use only service (labor)
identified by the warrantor to install the replacement parts. A
warrantor or his designated representative may not provide parts
under the warranty in a manner which impedes or precludes the
choice by the consumer of the person or business to perform
necessary labor to install such parts.

(c) No warrantor may condition the continued validity of a warranty
on the use of only authorized repair service and/or authorized
replacement parts for non-warranty service and maintenance.



A complete copy of the “Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act” may be obtained from,

FTC Headquarters
6th & Pennsylvania Avenue N.W.
Washington, DC 20580

202-326-2222