[nazgulsenpai]

> "Taking your product to be serviced by a repair shop that is not affiliated with or an authorized dealer of [Company] will not void this warranty. Also, using third-party parts will not void this warranty."

I do not own or plan to ever own a Harley Davidson or Westinghouse product. I understand and 100% agree with the right to repair parts. The second part, however, I have a few concerns. So, if I buy a cheap replica part from eBay and put it into my Harley Davidson, it causes other problems with the engine and then I make a warranty claim, they have to honor it?

[post_break]

"According to the Magnuson-Moss Act, a vehicle manufacturer cannot automatically cancel your warranty just because you’ve installed aftermarket car parts. This is an illegal practice. That said, if your aftermarket part somehow causes or contributes to a failure in your vehicle, the dealer may be able to deny your warranty claim—as long as they can prove the connection. In these cases, the burden of proof is entirely on the dealership."

If your cheap replica part causes issues to the thing you're trying to warranty then yes. If you replace the headlights with crappy clones from ebay, and Chevy says your warranty is void on your transmission, no.

[nazgulsenpai]

That makes sense. Thanks for clarifying.

[infogulch]

Totally valid question that prompted a great answer. Thank you!

For some context, the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act [1] mentioned above was made a law in 1975. This action by the FTC is basically calling HD and WH out on their noncompliance with this law, and more generally announcing their intention to enforce it more boadly. It's unfortunate that the FTC has allowed this lawbreaking behavior run rampant for decades, but I'm glad that they've gotten off their laurels and are finally moving on it now.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnuson%E2%80%93Moss_Warranty...

[rasz]

I take it you only use OEM Ford fuel in your car, because third party could cause 'other problems with the engine'?

The onus is on warrantor to prove third party components caused damage.

[d23]

I don't think people should downvote comments like these. It started a good discussion.

[throwaway23234]

I think most of the comment was just fine. The second phrase of the first sentence (not planning on ever owning) probably pissed people off and didn't add to the discussion. It's ok to not want products from companies. But it's mostly inflammatory to reduce the entirety of a company to a weird clause written in the warranty that was just some lawyer thing.

That all being said, it's the top comment at this point

[nazgulsenpai]

I was trying to get across that I'm neutral or I don't have a vested interest in either company. I certainly could have phrased it better.

[dundarious]

I think that was just them stating their priors, and it wasn't a consequence of the logic of their post.

[NonNefarious]

How is it inflammatory? It's a simple statement of intent.

Anyone getting butt-hurt over that should go back to Reddit.

[NonNefarious]

Exactly. But unfortunately Hacker News is becoming Reddit; where infantile, insecure shut-ins downvote facts they don't like.