Magnusson-Moss Warranty Act

[teslasguy]

The topic was moved to Off-Topic, so you can go read the quote there. But basically, I was right, the optimists were wrong, Tesla's lawyers are incompetent.

Can you post a link to the quote?

 

[bonnie]

Yes, please provide a link to where George B confirms this. I've looked, but I can't find it.

 

[Larry Chanin]

I actually think they'll probably "do the right thing" now -- previous information from Tesla was problematic but the most recent information sounds like they're paying more attention now. That's the purpose of being hysterical about such things, incidentally.

Bad news, folks: Tesla has said in so many words that unless they get an FTC waiver they are violating the Magnusson-Moss Warranty Act:

Quote from George Blankenship, Chief of Nickel-and-Diming Customers:


This is clearly illegal. By specifying "Tesla Certified" he has specified a branded service, which is *precisely* the form of tie-in which is banned by the Act.

Is this new information, or a rehash of previous hysteria? :biggrin:

I thought we resolved that George may have misspoke, but that the wording of the warranty was quite legal.

Thanks.

Larry

 

[kevincwelch]

re: neroden's conversation with George.

I suppose I look at this from two perspectives: 1) practical and 2) legal. I would not want my car serviced by any dealer/mechanic other than Tesla when it comes to the battery or electrical system. Every other consumable I am happy to have my local mechanic or myself take care of. Lastly, vis-a-vis the Magnusson-Moss Warranty Act, I am irate that I am compelled to pay Tesla and only Tesla to do all service.

 

[Larry Chanin]

The topic was moved to Off-Topic, so you can go read the quote there. But basically, I was right, the optimists were wrong, Tesla's lawyers are incompetent.

Actually the quote was not moved off topic, it remains in the orignal Warranty/Servicing - official Tesla responses (incl GeorgeB) thread.

What was moved off topic were discussions of the Magnusson-Moss-Warranty-Act.

This new thread should probably be merged with the off topic thread.

Larry

 

[Tommy]

Bad news, folks: Tesla has said in so many words that unless they get an FTC waiver they are violating the Magnusson-Moss Warranty Act:

Quote from George Blankenship, Chief of Nickel-and-Diming Customers:


This is clearly illegal. By specifying "Tesla Certified" he has specified a branded service, which is *precisely* the form of tie-in which is banned by the Act.

Tesla's lawyers are *incompetent*. Completely incompetent. There are at least three ways they could have retained essentially the same pricing scheme without breaking the law, and -- unless they got that FTC waiver -- they chose the lawbreaking way.

Bad news for who? Why wouldn't a purchaser want a qualified mechanic working on their car? To be qualified to work on a Tesla S means certified to work on a Tesla S. Right now only Tesla is able to provide that certification i.e. training. And right now only Tesla Service center have these certified mechanics.

@neoden, across several threads your chosen words convey and demean Tesla and it's leadership. I really don't think this is going to end well you getting an S; a constant thorn in the side for Tesla and a constantly unhappy customer. But each his own and I wish you all the well.

 

[ckessel]

That's the purpose of being hysterical about such things, incidentally.

You clearly seem to know a good deal about the relevant laws and being tenacious and vocal, especially to Tesla, is great.

Hysteria gets you written off as a crazy person though, which lessens the message. And give the importance of the message, that'd be a real shame.

 

[Larry Chanin]

re: neroden's conversation with George.

I suppose I look at this from two perspectives: 1) practical and 2) legal. I would not want my car serviced by any dealer/mechanic other than Tesla when it comes to the battery or electrical system. Every other consumable I am happy to have my local mechanic or myself take care of. Lastly, vis-a-vis the Magnusson-Moss Warranty Act, I am irate that I am compelled to pay Tesla and only Tesla to do all service.

Hi Kevin,

As I understand it neroden did not have a conversation with George, he is merely resurrecting George's original posting.

Regardless of what George posted, in my view the actual warranty terms does not prohibit you from having simple routine type service work performed by others. If it did your warranty would be voided by replacing windshield wipers. :wink:

Larry

 

[W.Petefish]

This is clearly illegal. By specifying "Tesla Certified" he has specified a branded service, which is *precisely* the form of tie-in which is banned by the Act.

"Tesla Certified" means similar to when a dealership says "Only by a certified ASE Mechanic." If that is the case, dealerships, computer companies, Electronics manufactures, ect. are violating the law.

 

[Thumper]

Could TM solve this problem by offering full service training to independent techs? They could charge for the training (hey a new revenue stream) and sell them any necessary special tools. Very few if any independents would take them up on the offer for years. It wouldn't pay for an independent until there is a very large installed fleet of Tesla cars, but it seems on the face of it that it could satisfy the letter of the law.

 

[bonnie]

Could TM solve this problem by offering full service training to independent techs? They could charge for the training (hey a new revenue stream) and sell them any necessary special tools. Very few if any independents would take them up on the offer for years. It wouldn't pay for an independent until there is a very large installed fleet of Tesla cars, but it seems on the face of it that it could satisfy the letter of the law.

That's assuming it IS a problem. I still have not seen wording in the warranty that would make it a problem. I interpreted what I read as saying that IF a non-Tesla certified technician worked on the car and IF damage occurred as a result, then that damage is not covered under the warranty. Which is perfectly reasonable.

 

[Larry Chanin]

That's assuming it IS a problem. I still have not seen wording in the warranty that would make it a problem. I interpreted what I read as saying that IF a non-Tesla certified technician worked on the car and IF damage occurred as a result, then that damage is not covered under the warranty. Which is perfectly reasonable.

Yes, that's how I interpret it. In my opinion there's a lot of unnecessary bee hive beating going on here. :wink:

I don't see how we can be mad at Tesla for developing new or proprietary hardware and software, and not volunteering to release that intellectual property to the competition. In some states laws may mandate just that, but why volunteer?

Larry

 

[4sevens.com]

"Tesla Certified" means similar to when a dealership says "Only by a certified ASE Mechanic." If that is the case, dealerships, computer companies, Electronics manufactures, ect. are violating the law.

You are wrong....

ASE (automotive service excellence) is a neutral party not affiliated with any automotive company.... VERY different than TESLA Certified.

Also what GM blogged is legally binding - though harder to prove. Even verbal agreements are binding - just hard to prove. When a VP of a company makes a public statement - he is and will be held to his word - unless there is some kind of formal correction after the fact - but he (the company) is liable and responsible for what he said between the statement and the formal correction... if people were misled and decided to put down a reservation or even NOT cancel a reservation because of his statement he and the company has legal liabilities because of it.

 

[W.Petefish]

You are wrong....

ASE (automotive service excellence) is a neutral party not affiliated with any automotive company.... VERY different than TESLA Certified.

Not what I was saying, just pointing to a point of reference where -most- electronics manufactures and other manufactures use similar terminology in their own warranty clauses.

 

[FlasherZ]

Right, but where is the quote where George "confirmed" that he "violated" the M-M act? I know plenty of products that have won M-M lawsuits, and there is case law that supports the position George stated: you must have a Tesla-certified technician work on your car, or it violates the warranty; this is the same as other electronics - that sticker that covers the screw hole on your electronics that says "warranty void if opened" is indeed legal, because you're not certified to screw with your electronics. Move these posts over to the off-topic and let the noise play out there, please.

 

[4sevens.com]

Not what I was saying, just pointing to a point of reference where -most- electronics manufactures and other manufactures use similar terminology in their own warranty clauses.

I was responding to your statement... ""Tesla Certified" means similar to when a dealership says "Only by a certified ASE Mechanic.""

It's not similar. ASE is neutral. Tesla is a trademarked car brand

 

[bonnie]

Okay, 4sevens, it's not *exactly* the same. But surely you understood his point.

 

[teslasguy]

Bad news, folks: Tesla has said in so many words that unless they get an FTC waiver they are violating the Magnusson-Moss Warranty Act:

Quote from George Blankenship, Chief of Nickel-and-Diming Customers:


This is clearly illegal. By specifying "Tesla Certified" he has specified a branded service, which is *precisely* the form of tie-in which is banned by the Act.

Tesla's lawyers are *incompetent*. Completely incompetent. There are at least three ways they could have retained essentially the same pricing scheme without breaking the law, and -- unless they got that FTC waiver -- they chose the lawbreaking way.

I think you would be best served to cancel your S reservation (if you have one) and forget about Tesla. It seems to me that if you persist in making such hard claims about the legality of Tesla's business practices you are just painting a big bull's eye on your back for Tesla's legal team. In fact I would be disappointed if they don't take you to task over some of your statements made on this forum. In my opinion you have crossed the line on more than one occasion.

 

[Larry Chanin]

I think you would be best served to cancel your S reservation (if you have one) and forget about Tesla.

neroden did cancel his reservation once. He has recently put down a new deposit and got back in line. So he should have ample time to see how others have fared.

Larry

 

[qwk]

I think you would be best served to cancel your S reservation (if you have one) and forget about Tesla. It seems to me that if you persist in making such hard claims about the legality of Tesla's business practices you are just painting a big bull's eye on your back for Tesla's legal team. In fact I would be disappointed if they don't take you to task over some of your statements made on this forum. In my opinion you have crossed the line on more than one occasion.

While I would agree that he is getting carried away with his posing, Tesla's legal team is not exactly competent. The only issue I see is GB's post about voiding the warranty if you do not pay the Tesla service costs. I'm sure he is regretting that post and also losing sleep because of it. It was clearly not worded right.