PSA: Please stop using the word "void" when talking about warranty and modifications

[Lonewolf]

PSA: Avoid the Noid

[pandamancer]

Originally Posted by justatroll

A comment:
If you mod the engine, you are almost certainly required to change the ECU ROM or "tune".
As soon as you do this you are rolling over on your back and exposing your belly to the Manufacturer.
This is because in a court, the manufacturer can say that modifying the tune could have affected ANYTHING in the car and now it is up to you (the challenger) to prove otherwise.

I'm pretty sure that is not how Burden of Proof works. It is their "burden" to "prove" not their burden to provide their opinion and then you have to defend against that.

Originally Posted by justatroll

It would be kind of like arguing with Dell that your Dell computer stopped working after you installed a new BIOS and began overclocking it.

In some cases this analogy is accurate, others not so much(see scenario #2 in my previous post). It could also be like arguing with Dell that my monitor isn't working because of the BIOS upgrade and overclocking I performed to the mobo/CPU(scenario #1).

As I also mentioned previously, going to court ought to be one of the last resorts for the reasons you provided. Unless in small claims court where explicitly forbidden, you will be going up against a lot of money and experts so your chances for success are slim. Similar scenario in Arbitration, though actually much worse for the consumer.

I could go on and on about this in a legal sense as there are a ton of different factors that can come into play. Even things like the DMCA and Computer Fraud and Abuse Act may be relevant as the battlefield is ever changing when we talk about who can legally access and modify what, even when you have purchased and own the object you desire to modify.

Who knows, maybe a case like this is just what is needed to force car manufactures to submit their ECU code for review. Then the fiasco that is VW diesel emissions could have been prevented(or caught sooner).

[Packofcrows]

Originally Posted by justatroll

So the proper way to say it is:

"If you mod your car you MAY be 'ineligible for Warranty coverage'"

Sounds pretty much the same as:
"Duuude a Turbo?! - NIIICE! but you just voided the powertrain warranty bro".

Just depends on what dialect you speak....

Well I used to say, "If you X your gonna fk it up with the dealer..."

So, I guess its back to "fk-ing things up" with the dealer.


...or did I void that? LMFAO

[strat61caster]

Originally Posted by justatroll

Just depends on what dialect you speak....

People will always be shit on for using poor grammar and incorrect language which causes confusion and waste.

Communication is a vastly underrated skill, too many people take it for granted. It doesn't matter if you can solve world hunger or create the next iphone if nobody can understand you.

[Donbrz]

This thread is humorous. Void is pretty clear and accurate, and Subaru might need to educate its techs and dealer management on word definition. If every time someone goes to dealer and first words are you modified your car and thus aren't covered. That is void. Have to threaten with rights or go to Subaru America to get remedied - i.e. "Unvoided".

I was at dealer when 70 yr old man brought in a forester, the techs first words were - you've modified and your not covered. How do you modify a forester?

[Packofcrows]

Originally Posted by Donbrz

This thread is humorous. Void is pretty clear and accurate, and Subaru might need to educate its techs and dealer management on word definition. If every time someone goes to dealer and first words are you modified your car and thus aren't covered. That is void. Have to threaten with rights or go to Subaru America to get remedied - i.e. "Unvoided".

I was at dealer when 70 yr old man brought in a forester, the techs first words were - you've modified and your not covered. How do you modify a forester?

damn, i looked for modded pics on google img and barely found some front bumper lips.... no modded hahah

[extrashaky]

Originally Posted by pandamancer

Also, you probably have a good shot in small claims but if you take it to arbitration, your success rate drastically falls as the arbiter can and is chosen(typically unfavorable for the consumer). You also lose a significant set of judiciary rights/privileges when going the route of arbitration.

The problem is that you may not have a choice. A lot of auto dealers include an arbitration clause in their sales contracts. You do lose your right to appeal. But on the other hand, there's usually no risk that you'll get stuck with any court fees, because it's usually agreed in the contract that the company pays for arbitration. Also, arbitrators are typically lawyers or retired judges who are acutely aware of the reputation arbitration has for benefiting corporations, and they usually try to be as fair as possible.

Arbitration isn't always bad. A friend of mine had an employment dispute settled through arbitration. What would have been a months long process was completely finished in a single night. And he won. (I was there as a witness on his behalf and was somewhat impressed with the process.)

Really, what would you have to lose by trying?

Originally Posted by justatroll

This is because in a court, the manufacturer can say that modifying the tune could have affected ANYTHING in the car and now it is up to you (the challenger) to prove otherwise.

No, it's up to the manufacturer to prove their case. You can rebut their argument, but it's their burden of proof. You don't have to prove your position. You have to show they haven't proven theirs.

Originally Posted by justatroll

I dont care what the MM act states. Nothing in that act will come into play UNLESS you have gone to court.

That's not true. Any decent lawyer will tell you that the threat of litigation can often be more effective than litigation itself. A lot of companies get away with bullying their customers because the customers simply take it. When faced with a customer who is willing to fight back, some will back down. This is often true even when the company is "right," when the cost of litigation will exceed the cost of just ponying up the cost of the repair. For the consumer it might become an emotional issue of beating the company, but for the company it comes down to a business decision of comparing costs, regardless of who is "right."

Originally Posted by justatroll

Please anyone that has EVER gone to court using the MM act please raise your hand!

http://www.ft86club.com/forums/showt...19#post1773949

Doh!

That post demonstrated a simple concept that consumers don't understand. Much of the common law regarding warranties (both implied and explicit) revolve around the idea that a company has deeper pockets than the typical consumer and is therefore better able to absorb a loss. As a result, the process is often tilted in the plaintiff's favor.

Originally Posted by justatroll

It will be very easy for the manufacturer to argue that your change in software changed the original operation of the machine in a way that was not the original intent.

No, it's not necessarily all that easy, because judges and arbitrators are experts on law and not necessarily experts in automotive technology. They put their engineer on the stand to say that your tune caused the problem. You put your expert tuner on the stand to say that's bullshit. The judge is not just looking at who has the longer resume, but also who might have the bigger incentive to bend the truth. All you have to do is create enough doubt that the judge doesn't believe the manufacturer proved their case.

It's this uncertainty that makes the threat of litigation effective in many cases. Manufacturers have gotten spanked enough times in court when they were technically right that they don't like to expose themselves to the risk and would often rather settle.

Originally Posted by justatroll

All I am saying is that the manufacturer has the upper hand in this fight because it involves software (the ghost in the machine).

Even if the manufacturer had the upper hand, why would that be an excuse to roll over and just accept what they say without pushing back? Even if you had a slim chance of winning, that would be a chance that you would come out ahead. If you just accept their decree that your warranty is "void," you guarantee that you lose.

[Tcoat]

[QUOTE=extrashaky;2497693]The problem is that you may not have a choice. A lot of auto dealers include an arbitration clause in their sales contracts. You do lose your right to appeal. But on the other hand, there's usually no risk that you'll get stuck with any court fees, because it's usually agreed in the contract that the company pays for arbitration. Also, arbitrators are typically lawyers or retired judges who are acutely aware of the reputation arbitration has for benefiting corporations, and they usually try to be as fair as possible.

Arbitration isn't always bad. A friend of mine had an employment dispute settled through arbitration. What would have been a months long process was completely finished in a single night. And he won. (I was there as a witness on his behalf and was somewhat impressed with the process.)

Really, what would you have to lose by trying?

QUOTE]
In Canada we are lucky in that we have an actual government sponsored arbitration resource that is specifically targeted at car warranties. The beauty of it is that it is made up of professionals which this is all they do and they have great backgrounds in the automotive industry so neither side can pull the wool over their eyes. I know two people that had great success with this program. Also know of (didn't directly know) of one guy that tried to scam the dealer and was shot down in flames by the arbitrator.


http://www.camvap.ca/

[strat61caster]

Originally Posted by Donbrz

This thread is humorous. Void is pretty clear and accurate, and Subaru might need to educate its techs and dealer management on word definition. If every time someone goes to dealer and first words are you modified your car and thus aren't covered. That is void. Have to threaten with rights or go to Subaru America to get remedied - i.e. "Unvoided".

I was at dealer when 70 yr old man brought in a forester, the techs first words were - you've modified and your not covered. How do you modify a forester?

Dealerships know exactly what they're implying imo, no amount of training will discourage bad business practices.

As for the forester, on the older ones doing an STI powertrain swap is totally within the realm of reason...

[extrashaky]

Originally Posted by strat61caster

Dealerships know exactly what they're implying imo, no amount of training will discourage bad business practices.

It's not necessarily a bad business practice. If you can convince your customers that their warranty is void to the point that they just roll over and accept that, you reduce your costs. It would be in a company's best interest to perpetuate this myth.

[Teseo]

My warranty was "voided" because i change the axleback, my layer is working on it but he have more focus on a discrimination rather than magnuson just because im young. Like i said, when you cross the door and say "have problem with the car" they will do everything for denny it. But you have strong points op, i will try them

[justatroll]

@extrashaky
I wont try to refute any of what you said above because it all makes sense.


However my point was that since pretty much ANY mod to the engine requires a Tune change, the auto manufacturer has the upper hand because they can claim SOFTWARE.


Once you go down that rabbit hole they have the upper hand.
In fact ANY argument that the car owner may try to make before or during court would likely get challenged because the manufacturer can claim "Proprietary technology" or just confuse the court to the point that no-one can refute their claims.


I totally agree with the intent of the law, but in the case of changing the car software this will become a very slippery slope that the car manufacturers will have the advantage because THEY understand the software while WE do not (even the reverse engineers that provide the ROM definition files admit that they do not understand all of it).


In fact, I believe that right now the ROM on these cars could be considered "encrypted" and any reverse engineering would be considered a violation of the DMCA.
So if they tried to go that route, they could argue that any discussion of their "code" would violate the DMCA and many cases could get thrown out on those grounds alone because a law was broken in the act of flashing the new ROM.


I am just stating the fact: Trying to fight the manufacturer with a warranty claim if you have modified ANY code on the vehicle is a long shot at best.
In a perfect world, your points are valid.


Give me just one example of someone winning a MM court case when the software has been modified.
In my business we have a saying "Oh something went wrong - 99% its the software" and almost every single time we are right....


So if you go to court and the manufacturer pulls "the software card" they can confuse the jury, the judge, and even the "experts" almost every time.
In fact I would make a bet that if the manufacturer took the modified code and ran it in their FQT (Formal Qualification Test) on the ECU/auto simulator, the code would show "Test FAIL" every time and they would probably not have to explain any further (like WHY the test failed).
That is likely all they would have to show in court to win.

[Cmorris8848]

Originally Posted by extrashaky

No, it's not necessarily all that easy, because judges and arbitrators are experts on law and not necessarily experts in automotive technology. They put their engineer on the stand to say that your tune caused the problem. You put your expert tuner on the stand to say that's bullshit. The judge is not just looking at who has the longer resume, but also who might have the bigger incentive to bend the truth. All you have to do is create enough doubt that the judge doesn't believe the manufacturer proved their case.

The issue with this, is that the warranty includes a statement that can be interpreted a variety of ways. It says that any changes made to the car that affect the original construction of the vehicle, will cause a specific warranty claim to be denied.

Most people get a custom tune to increase power, since the factory tune is usually made for maximum gas mileage which in turn decreases power output. If the custom tune decides to put power over gas mileage then the company can argue that the custom tune is not in line with the original construction of the vehicle and deny your engine warranty claim.

[mav1178]

Originally Posted by Cmorris8848

The issue with this, is that the warranty includes a statement that can be interpreted a variety of ways. It says that any changes made to the car that affect the original construction of the vehicle, will cause a warranty claim to be denied.

Can. Not will.

My car is at the dealer now for warranty work. My suspension and brake upgrades have zero impact on the engine warranty repair being done.

Now, if you wanted to put on an aftermarket supercharger or header, and there was an oil leak from the timing cover, the manufacturer could claim that the additional heat caused the cover to leak and will deny a claim. But just because you have mods doesn't mean anything for warranty claims unless the claim in question is directly related to the mods you've made.

I posted this thread to get people (especially newbies) to change their way of thinking. To say "void" out of the gate is akin to admitting you're going to fail... and I highly doubt people want to say "I'm probably going to fail at life today" when they wake up.

-alex