While my law experience is attempting to get out of a few—read many—speeding tickets over the years, there's always been something about contract law that irks me. And that's how aftermarket parts can void warranties.
I understand that if you throw on a turbocharger or add nitrous to a UTV, hence "enhancing" its performance, performance it wasn't designed for, it could lead to catastrophic failure, i.e. it blowing up in your face. And in that case, you—the person who added those modifications—are liable for that failure. It's your stupid ass who did the thing.
But when it comes to replacing a like part for like part, but maybe from a different manufacturer than the original was, something that works identically to that original part but is maybe cheaper, why should that affect your warranty? It's only saving you money. And even some other aftermarket parts, things that don't necessarily affect a machine's performance, could be part of this too. Yet, they all tend to void your warranty.
Should that really be the case? Well, that's what a class-action lawsuit is asking as a group of Harley-Davidson customers are suing the Motor Co. for antitrust infringement.
According to Courthouse News Service, "The customers filed a class action against Harley-Davidson July 2023 in the U.S. District Court Eastern District of Wisconsin, claiming that the company’s limited warranty policy — which says that the use of non-Harley-Davidson parts for bike repairs or modifications could void customers’ warranties — violates U.S. antitrust laws by forcing consumers to buy aftermarket parts only from the motorcycle giant."
Essentially, a number of customers are pissed that you can't go outside Harley-Davidson for repair work or aftermarket parts without the company immediately voiding your warranty. They argue that you're stuck within the Harley-Davidson ecosystem, which represents a monopoly. However, earlier this year, U.S. District Judge William C. Griesbach dismissed the class-action, stating that Harley didn't violate the "tying provision" of the law, which states "No warrantor of a consumer product may condition his written or implied warranty of such product on the consumer’s using, in connection with such product, any article or service (other than article or service provided without charge under the terms of the warranty) which is identified by brand, trade, or corporate name.”
As such, the judge said Harley's warranty didn't meet those standards of exclusion.
The law's wording, however, and how the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) takes these words to mean, is you can't void a person's warranty if they seek outside service from the manufacturer or use aftermarket parts for repair or anything else. It's the basis of the Right to Repair fight that's going on across the country. It's also why U.S. Circuit Judge John Lee brought the case back up onto the docket and allowed arguments to continue.
As for what happens, that's unclear. With the Chevron deference now dead, and a new administration coming into power, as well as a Supreme Court that's sided more and more with corporate wills and wants, it's unclear whether this will all go away or whether the customers' class-action will be ultimately won. Whatever the case may be, it's certainly a talking point amongst owners, or should be, as it affects us all and our right to repair our machines ourselves.
