Aftermarket parts cannot VOID your warranty

[rapidcars]

Originally Posted by Kelbyat07

Just curious, what kind do you have?

Perrin non-resonated. Love the sound. Deep and no rasp or anything like that.

[FRSBRZGT86FAN]

Well duh, As soon as you crack open that block you void the warranty simple as that. But you should realize that if there is a serious issue like the DI failure and what not, and they find a mod, you can be sure they will do their very best to void the warranty and blame it on that part to get out of working on the car and losing profit. Several members of the forum have had similar issues. They even go so far as to search the user up on the internet for track use and hard running as was seen before. The bottom line is you just have to be careful and if they do try to deny you because of the mod you keep fighting them.

[DoomsdayJesus]

Originally Posted by Dezoris

Burden of proof is on you. Point is you have to pay up front which is thousands in court costs and legal fees that you may lose, when either the OEM shows up to court of the dealer. Huge risk, lot of stress, and money just to file and start the process.

Not as easy as empty threats, most car owners are not going to park their car broken and waste half a year taking a manufacturer to court over a 1k repair bill.

No it is not. Burden of proof is on the manufacturer to prove that the fault was caused by your modification. That's explicitly stated in the law. Stop spreading BS.

http://www.dummies.com/how-to/conten...ty-intact.html

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. For example, provisions such as, "This warranty is void if service is performed by anyone other than an authorized 'ABC' dealer and all replacement parts must be genuine 'ABC' parts," and the like, are prohibited where the service or parts are not covered by the warranty. These provisions violate the Act in two ways. First, they violate the section 102(c) ban against tying arrangements. Second, such provisions are deceptive under section 110 of the Act, because a warrantor cannot, as a matter of law, avoid liability under a written warranty where a defect is unrelated to the use by a consumer of "unauthorized" articles or service. This does not preclude a warrantor from expressly excluding liability for defects or damage caused by such "unauthorized" articles or service; nor does it preclude the warrantor from denying liability where the warrantor can demonstrate that the defect or damage was so caused. Under the Magnuson-Moss Act, a dealer must prove, not just vocalize, that aftermarket equipment caused the need for repairs before it can deny warranty coverage. If the dealer cannot prove such a claim — or it proffers a questionable explanation — it is your legal right to demand compliance with the warranty. The Federal Trade Commission administers the Magnuson-Moss Act and monitors compliance with warranty law.

[DoomsdayJesus]

Originally Posted by Kelbyat07

I recently had to get my gas tank check out because someone rear ended me. The dealer said if I had installed a different exhaust it would probably void the warranty of getting it check out for free..

Your dealer is full of shit.

[SigmaHyperion]

Originally Posted by DoomsdayJesus

Your dealer is full of shit.

Not if "checking out" the fuel tank required touching the exhaust in any way.

It would not have voided the warranty on the tank of course, but it most definitely would have voided the 'checking it for free'; which, considering it was something they did after an accident, really had nothing to do with a warranty at all, but was rather a favor the dealer did for him. But, regardless, Subaru will not cover the labor costs to remove an aftermarket component; nor would a dealer care to take on that liability.

[DoomsdayJesus]

Originally Posted by SigmaHyperion

Not if "checking out" the fuel tank required touching the exhaust in any way. . . .
. . . But, regardless, Subaru will not cover the labor costs to remove an aftermarket component; nor would a dealer care to take on that liability.

They are hung from the same damn hooks, you're completely making things up. Stop. This was uninformed advice from some peon at a dealership, not a lawyer, and not SOA. Show me where SOA says removing an aftermarket exhaust is a no-go instead of making ridiculous claims.

Granted, this was an accident. If it wasn't, aftermarket or not, he's golden. Any dealer who would put up resistance for removing an aftermarket exhaust is a clown, the procedure is identical or nearly so, and their mechanics aren't paint-by-numbers retards.

Again, for emphasis, from the FTC:

Will using 'aftermarket' or recycled parts void my warranty?

No. An 'aftermarket' part is a part made by a company other than the vehicle manufacturer or the original equipment manufacturer. A 'recycled' part is a part that was made for and installed in a new vehicle by the manufacturer or the original equipment manufacturer, and later removed from the vehicle and made available for resale or reuse. Simply using an aftermarket or recycled part does not void your warranty. The Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act makes it illegal for companies to void your warranty or deny coverage under the warranty simply because you used an aftermarket or recycled part. Still, if it turns out that the aftermarket or recycled part was itself defective or wasn't installed correctly, and it causes damage to another part that is covered under the warranty, the manufacturer or dealer has the right to deny coverage for that part and charge you for any repairs. The FTC says the manufacturer or dealer must show that the aftermarket or recycled part caused the need for repairs before denying warranty coverage.

The FTC says the manufacturer or dealer must show that the aftermarket or recycled part caused the need for repairs before denying warranty coverage

the manufacturer or dealer must show that the aftermarket or recycled part caused the need for repairs

To everyone thinking of doing it:

If you don't know what you're talking about, don't say anything. Or preface it with a statement saying you're speculating. Or ask a question and research. There is never anything wrong with admitting you don't know. Giving bad advice is an awful, awful thing to do, though.

People on forums love to talk themselves into a corner without doing research. Be better than that. I deal with enough of the rumor mill and asinine anecdotes at work.

[SigmaHyperion]

Originally Posted by DoomsdayJesus

If you don't know what you're talking about, don't say anything. Or preface it with a statement saying you're speculating. Or ask a question and research. There is never anything wrong with admitting you don't know. Giving bad advice is an awful, awful thing to do, though.

People on forums love to talk themselves into a corner without doing research. Be better than that. I deal with enough of the rumor mill and asinine anecdotes at work.

You wanna compare credentials?

Been out of the business a little while, but I've been a manufacturer and distributor of aftermarket components and member of SEMA for over 10 years. On 6 seperate occassions I've had to provide sworn affidavits regarding my components (shifters/linkages/bushing/etc) and the effect of those on other components within the vehicle specifically in regards to lawsuits arising from denied warranty claims. I've put more money into my vehicles in the past decade than most people put into their homes, but never had a warranty issue that couldn't be resolved amicably. Am I a lawyer? Fuck no. Am I just a little more qualified and experiened than you? Just a tad.

You can post all the stuff from the FTC and Magnuson-Moss Act regarding warranty on the affected part all you want. You won't find a thing in there about covering the removal of non-OEM components to get to them. I know. I've navigated that document upteen hundreds of times over a decade. You won't find it because it's not a protection provided under the act.

No manufacturer has ANY responsiblity to remove an aftermarket component to get to a failed one, regardless of the status of your warranty. PERIOD. That is not to say that they won't, just that they don't have to.

A good service guy will take a look, realize it's a clean install and just as easy to take your exhaust off as the OEM one, and do the work -- the hours he's getting paid by Subaru are all the same.
Or, he may take a look, see the BS jury-rigged job you've got going on under there, and say that, sorry, he's not taking it off. That's within his rights because the law doesn't say that he has to remove a non-OEM part to get to the good one. It only says that he has to replace the tank (if, indeed it was a warranty issue).

This is basic common sense. If the law extended so far as to protect the consumer even in regards to the removal and reinstallation of aftermarket components just to get to the warrantied ones, dealers could find themselves doing a MESS of work around other people's shitty installations. They cannot open themselves up to the liabilty of reinstalling your component in the same shitty manner it was installed when it came in, as they are now liable for it.

[Jive Turkey]

here is the way i see it. if you dont want to get hassled, DON'T MOD.

however, know that your warranty cannot be voided. i hate when people say that, they cannot take it and throw it out. they can simply deny your claim. as stated dozens of times, you put on a catback they can't deny a claim for a broken window switch...in the end dont let the dealership walk all over you. most of hte service guys, from my experience, are talking out their ass. they do not like an educated consumer, so dont be a smart ass. be respectful and most will work with you. having a good relationship doesn't hurt.

when i had my STI i was not stock by any means and went to the dealer multiple times without issue.

[Lonewolf]

I'll just repost this even though it got one guy's panties in a wad last time, lol:

***DISCLAIMER: The subsequent material does not constitute legal advice or legal representation in any way, shape, or form. The material is provided for ENTERTAINMENT PURPOSES ONLY, and was originally posted on an Internet community forum. The views expressed herein do not necessarily reflect the views of the owners, moderators, or administrators of the Internet forum. No portion of the subsequent material may be reproduced, retransmitted, copied, posted, printed, downloaded, or linked without express written consent from a site administrator.


There is a great deal of confusion regarding vehicle modifications and manufacturer warranties on the Internet. What follows are some simplistic clarifications to help consumers navigate the murky waters of vehicle modifications and warranties.


Magnusson-Moss Warranty Act: This act provides a host of benefits for common consumers, and some protections for automotive enthusiasts as well. The Magnusson-Moss Warranty Act may be viewed as a federal "lemon law" (California's state lemon law is the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act). Lemon laws serve the basic function of protecting the consumer from vehicle defects and improper warranty denial or abuse.


Magnusson-Moss provides that before a manufacturer can deny warranty coverage as a result of a vehicle modification (e.g., aftermarket exhaust or wheels), the manufacturer must provide proof or evidence that the aftermarket part caused or contributed to a warranty concern or issue. [*Please check your owner's manual for the extent and duration of all vehicle warranties before attempting to assert protections provided by Magnusson-Moss.]

For example, if you have an aftermarket exhaust, and you take your car to the dealership to service a transmission issue, the manufacturer must demonstrate a causal link between your aftermarket exhaust and the transmission issue in order to deny warranty coverage that would have addressed the transmission issue.


In the event that an aftermarket part or component is found to have caused or contributed to a warranty issue, then the warranty for that specific manufacturer part is no longer valid, the warranty for the rest of the vehicle still remains in effect. For example, a manufacturer cannot void your powertrain (engine/transmission) warranty because you installed an aftermarket stereo head unit and amplifier in your car, and your factory speakers are now blown and no longer functional. Only the portion of the manufacturer's warranty for the vehicle's factory (original) sound system is affected. Your powertrain warranty remains intact despite the fact you modified the interior of your car, damaged the factory speakers, and no longer have warranty coverage for your factory/original sound system.


Real World Implications: Despite the protections provided by Magnusson-Moss, many automotive dealerships (which are independently owned and operated) will attempt to void vehicle warranties (or refuse service under warranty) because of aftermarket parts or modifications because they know that many people are not aware of their rights, will not go through the trouble of fighting the dealership and/or manufacturer, or do not want to wait to have vehicle service performed at a later date. *Remember that your vehicle warranties are through the manufacturer, and that the dealership is compensated by the manufacturer for warranty service when the service is approved by the manufacturer or its service divisions.


Preventative Solutions/Tips:

1) Try to have your vehicle serviced at a dealership that is fair and reasonable with respect to vehicle modifications. Inquire as to the dealership's stance regarding modifications before going in for service with aftermarket parts installed. Some dealerships are owned by enthusiasts and they appreciate the modifications performed by owners, and other dealerships don't want to deal with the potential liability or headaches that come with servicing modified vehicles under warranty. There are many dealerships that take no issue with modifications such as air intakes, cat-back exhausts, lowering springs, and aftermarket wheels, but draw the line at more involved modifications such as forced induction or aftermarket tunes. Conversely, there are dealerships that will take issue with minor modifications such as an aftermarket air filter or an axle-back exhaust.


2) Certain manufacturers provide branded performance parts such as intakes and lowering springs from in-house racing developers or third party affiliates such as TRD or STi. Performance upgrades from these sources are often backed with factory warranties so long as they are installed by a dealer. This is one potential way to avoid warranty hassles, but the trade-off is that these upgrade parts are limited in application and can be rather expensive.


3) Some dealerships will even install aftermarket (not from TRD or STi) parts for you, but be aware that if something goes wrong, and a warranty issue arises, all bets are off regarding your treatment by the dealership. If possible, get a written representation from the dealership that installed the aftermarket parts that you will be covered in the event of a subsequent warranty issue.


Editor's note: Organizations such as SEMA can provide you with more in-depth information and additional resources regarding the aftermarket industry and aftermarket parts.

[GodzillaR-35]

Just to be clear, I am not a lawyer and no I wont stay at a Holiday Inn.

Quote,
But, if you ever wondered if your CAI, Exhaust, LED's, UniChip, etc will void your warranty the simple answer is no.......UNLESS the manufacture can prove the aftermarket part caused the failure.

Hahaha not true! I work for Toyota and that is simply not true. Now of course depending on circumstances. If a manufacturer tells ya it isn't covered then it's your responsiblity to prove otherwise. So be careful as to what you say!
Ie: I just had my tranny grenade on my GTR. The only reason Nissan warrantied the tranny was because it was a known problem on early 09's, had my GTR been a later production 09 Nissan said straight out that it would not have been covered! ($$32,222.19)

Torsten
Service Advisor

[dsgerbc]

And I'm gonna reply again, and say that all this "Magnuson-Moss to the rescue" is a lie spread by aftermarket. The law only applies to aftermarket parts done to OEM specifications. That is your Fram oil filters, walmart windshield wipers etc.
Not your header-back, not your blower, not your reflash.

Once you put something on your car that is not to OEM spec, you're setting yourself up for warranty claim denial (for any part failure downstream of the modded part). It won't happen to everyone, it won't happen every time. But it does happen to enough people, and they usually end-up holding the bag.

Just remember that vendors here are not your friends, they are here to make money off you.

[bedabi]

I am a trial attorney. Listen to what Dezoris and SigmaHyperion said. I "thanked" all the posts I agree with. People need to think through how the MM Act can be brought into play. Printing up a copy of it and bringing to the dealer won't have magical effects.

I just had warranty work done for an faulty abd sensor that out my BRZ into limp mode. I have no mods. But say the dealership, for whatever reason denied my warranty repair for an intake. I cite the MM Act. They laugh. I write to Subaru. No response.

So at this point there are no magical forces that will make Subaru or the dealership meet their burden of proof. Starting a lawsuit is the only option. No experienced trial lawyer is going to take on the case without a retainer. There is ALWAYS risk taking any matter to trial where a total stranger (judge) or strangers (jury) who may have little to no experience with cars/ the MMA/modding will make the decision. You may or may not recoup attorney costs. Even if you are awarded attorney costs, it will likely be "reasonable costs" and not the amount you actually paid your lawyer.

This isn't even getting to the expert witness you'll likely need to tell the court that the modification wasn't related to the warranty claim. "But they'll have the burden of proof!" Once the dealer serves up an affidavit from one of its techs blankly saying that the mid is related, BAM, a judge can say burden is met. You'll have to rebut that with an expert witness.

[fistpoint]

Originally Posted by bedabi

I am a trial attorney. Listen to what Dezoris and SigmaHyperion said. I "thanked" all the posts I agree with. People need to think through how the MM Act can be brought into play. Printing up a copy of it and bringing to the dealer won't have magical effects.

I just had warranty work done for an faulty abd sensor that out my BRZ into limp mode. I have no mods. But say the dealership, for whatever reason denied my warranty repair for an intake. I cite the MM Act. They laugh. I write to Subaru. No response.

So at this point there are no magical forces that will make Subaru or the dealership meet their burden of proof. Starting a lawsuit is the only option. No experienced trial lawyer is going to take on the case without a retainer. There is ALWAYS risk taking any matter to trial where a total stranger (judge) or strangers (jury) who may have little to no experience with cars/ the MMA/modding will make the decision. You may or may not recoup attorney costs. Even if you are awarded attorney costs, it will likely be "reasonable costs" and not the amount you actually paid your lawyer.

This isn't even getting to the expert witness you'll likely need to tell the court that the modification wasn't related to the warranty claim. "But they'll have the burden of proof!" Once the dealer serves up an affidavit from one of its techs blankly saying that the mid is related, BAM, a judge can say burden is met. You'll have to rebut that with an expert witness.

Hopefully your post will put an end to the concept that the MM Act is an act of God on paper.

You should pop into the other threads where people suggest hiring a lawyer for a $200 job gone wrong. "they put pickles on my burger!"..."get a lawyer dude!".

[Lonewolf]

Originally Posted by fistpoint

Hopefully your post will put an end to the concept that the MM Act is an act of God on paper.

You should pop into the other threads where people suggest hiring a lawyer for a $200 job gone wrong. "they put pickles on my burger!"..."get a lawyer dude!".

And who's saying MM is an act of God? people should know about the protections that they do have, and whether you like it or not, it is a type of consumer protection in the form of a presumption.