I’m not a lawyer. You already knew that. But I say that to make it clear to you I don’t spend a lot of time researching and interpreting law. Unless, of course, a law impacts our industry. That’s precisely what happened last month while attending the Commercial Vehicle Solutions Network (CVSN) Aftermarket Distribution Summit.
Let me briefly set the scene. During each year’s summit, CVSN dedicates one business session to addressing the association’s current and future industry initiatives.
For several years this session could have been dubbed “The Right to Repair Update,” as CVSN spearheaded the Commercial Vehicle Right to Repair Coalition that helped the independent aftermarket eventually earn a national Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with truck OEMs in 2015.
Right to Repair still comes up in the session, but it’s no longer the dominant topic. The upcoming Heavy Duty Aftermarket Week also earned a plug last month, as did the efforts by the Auto Care Association and Pricedex Software to introduce product data standards to the heavy-duty parts industry.
The topic that earned the most interest and discussion at this year’s event was the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, a 1975 law created to clarify requirements and disclaimers for consumer warranties and has recently resurfaced as a potential obstacle to the long-term viability of aftermarket parts distribution.
The Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act was written to protect consumers against unfair attempts by manufacturers to void warranty contracts and provide consumers detailed information about warranty coverages they obtain. While the law’s synopsis and a quick glance at its larger framework appear to be basic consumer protection, it is that same consumer-heavy language that happens to be CVSN’s cause for concern.
One of Magnuson-Moss’s greatest consumer defenses is its restriction on tie-in sales provisions, which it describes as a manufacturer requiring a purchaser of a warrantied item to only purchase replacement componentry for that item from a particular provider to remain in compliance with the original product’s warranty. In simpler terms, the tie-in sales restriction ensures a consumer’s warranty on a product isn’t immediately voided for purchasing an aftermarket replacement part.
If that sounds like a good and logical provision to you, you’re not alone. CVSN feels the same. Which is why the organization is worried.
Speaking about the law at last month’s event, Total Truck Parts’ Marc Karon told the audience that despite its inclusive language and comprehensive aims, the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act does not apply to warranties on products sold for commercial purposes. Which means it does not apply to heavy-duty trucks and, as such, neither do its tie-in sales restrictions.
Follow that line of thinking for a second. I’ll wait. Do you see what that could mean for anyone who sells aftermarket parts?
Again, the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act isn’t new and neither are its provisions and restrictions. This isn’t a sudden change. But as equipment becomes more advanced and componentry becomes increasingly proprietary, there does exist the possibility that warranties developed for new model year trucks could eventually include tie-in restrictions that limit or eliminate the potential for truck owners to use aftermarket parts during their early years of ownership.
I think that’s unfortunate. An aftermarket component isn’t inherently inferior to a genuine OEM part — in many cases they’re identical except for the label — and in some cases newly released aftermarket components meet or exceed the performance standards of previously spec’d components.
I don’t think the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act is going to change. I hope our industry’s warranties don’t either.
