80 FR 42710 - Final Action Concerning Review of Interpretations of Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act; Rule Governing Disclosure of Written Consumer Product Warranty Terms and Conditions; Rule Governing Pre-Sale Availability of Written Warranty Terms; Rule Governing Informal Dispute Settlement Procedures; and Guides for the Advertising of Warranties and Guarantees
FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION Federal Register Volume 80, Issue 138 (July 20, 2015)
Federal Register Volume 80, Issue 138 (July 20, 2015)
| Page Range | 42710-42723 | |
| FR Document | 2015-14065 |
[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 138 (Monday, July 20, 2015)] [Rules and Regulations] [Pages 42710-42723] From the Federal Register Online [www.thefederalregister.org] [FR Doc No: 2015-14065] ======================================================================= ----------------------------------------------------------------------- FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION 16 CFR Parts 700, 701, and 703 RIN 3084-AB24; 3084-AB25; 3084-AB26 Final Action Concerning Review of Interpretations of Magnuson- Moss Warranty Act; Rule Governing Disclosure of Written Consumer Product Warranty Terms and Conditions; Rule Governing Pre-Sale Availability of Written Warranty Terms; Rule Governing Informal Dispute Settlement Procedures; and Guides for the Advertising of Warranties and Guarantees AGENCY: Federal Trade Commission. ACTION: Final revised Interpretations; Final clerical changes to Rules; and Conclusion of review proceedings. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- SUMMARY: The Federal Trade Commission (``the Commission'') is announcing its final action in connection with the review of a set of warranty-related Rules and Guides: The Interpretations of the Magnuson- Moss Warranty Act (``Interpretations'' or ``part 700''); the Rule Governing Disclosure of Written Consumer Product Warranty Terms and Conditions (``Rule 701''); the Rule Governing Pre-Sale Availability of Written Warranty Terms (``Rule 702''); the Rule Governing Informal Dispute Settlement Procedures (``Rule 703''); and the Guides for the Advertising of Warranties and Guarantees (``the Guides'' or ``part 239''). The Interpretations represent the Commission's views on various aspects of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act (``the Act'' or ``MMWA''), and are intended to clarify the Act's requirements. Rule 701 specifies the information that must appear in a written warranty on a consumer product. Rule 702 details the obligations of sellers and warrantors to make warranty information available to consumers prior to purchase. Rule 703 specifies the minimum standards required for any informal dispute settlement mechanism that is incorporated into a written consumer product warranty, and that the consumer must use prior to pursuing any legal remedies in court. The Guides are intended to help advertisers avoid unfair or deceptive practices in the advertising of warranties or guarantees. [[Page 42711]] DATES: The changes to the Interpretations and Rules will take effect on July 20, 2015. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Svetlana S. Gans, Staff Attorney, Division of Marketing Practices, Federal Trade Commission, Washington, DC 20580, (202) 326-3708. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The MMWA, 15 U.S.C. 2301-2312, is the federal law that governs consumer product warranties. Passed by Congress in 1975, the Act requires manufacturers and sellers of consumer products to provide consumers with detailed information about warranty coverage before and after the sale of a warranted product. When consumers believe they are the victim of an MMWA violation, the statute provides them the ability to proceed through a warrantor's informal dispute resolution process or sue in court. On August 23, 2011, the Commission published a Federal Register request for public comment, soliciting written public comments concerning five warranty Rules and Guides: (1) The Commission's Interpretations of the Magnuson- Moss Warranty Act, 16 CFR part 700; (2) the Rule Governing Disclosure of Written Consumer Product Warranty Terms and Conditions, 16 CFR part 701; (3) the Rule Governing Pre-Sale Availability of Written Warranty Terms, 16 CFR part 702; (4) the Rule Governing Informal Dispute Settlement Procedures, 16 CFR part 703; and (5) the Guides for the Advertising of Warranties and Guarantees, 16 CFR part 239.\1\ The Commission requested comments on these Rules and Guides as part of its regulatory review program, under which it reviews rules and guides periodically in order to obtain information about the costs and benefits of the rules and guides under review, as well as their regulatory and economic impact. The information obtained assists the Commission in identifying rules and guides that warrant modification or rescission. After careful review of the comments received in response to the request, the Commission has determined to retain Rules 701, 702, and 703, and the Guides without change, and to modify the Interpretations in Sec. Sec. 700.10 and 700.11(a). The Commission is also updating the citation format in the Interpretations and Rules.\2\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \1\ 76 FR 52596 (Aug. 23, 2011). \2\ These clerical changes do not involve any substantive changes in the Rules' requirements for entities subject to the Rules. Accordingly, the Commission finds that public comment is unnecessary. See 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(B). In addition, under the APA, a substantive final rule is required to take effect at least 30 days after publication in the Federal Register unless an agency finds good cause that the rule should become effective sooner. 5 U.S.C. 553(d). However, this is purely a clerical change and is not a substantive rule change. Therefore, the Commission finds good cause to dispense with a delayed effective date. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- In addition, Commission staff has recently issued a number of guidance documents to better educate consumers and businesses concerning their rights and obligations under the MMWA. For example, in order to cure perceived misconceptions in the marketplace, staff issued and recently updated a consumer alert stating that the MMWA prohibits warrantors from voiding an automotive warranty merely because a consumer uses an aftermarket or recycled part or third-party services to repair one's vehicle (subject to certain exceptions).\3\ Staff also updated the .Com Disclosures to provide additional guidance concerning online warranty disclosure obligations \4\ and issued letters to various online sellers concerning their obligations under the pre-sale availability rule.\5\ Staff will continue to evaluate whether additional guidance is necessary to better inform both consumers and business concerning their rights and responsibilities under the MMWA. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \3\ FTC, Auto Warranties & Routine Maintenance (July 2011, updated May 2015) (``Consumer Alert on Auto Warranties''), available at http://www.consumer.ftc.gov/articles/0138-auto-warranties-routine-maintenance. A warrantor may condition the warranty on the use of certain parts or service if it provides these parts and services without charge to the consumer under the warranty, or alternatively, if the warrantor receives a waiver from the Commission. See 15 U.S.C. 2302(c). \4\ See FTC, .com Disclosures: How to Make Effective Disclosures in Digital Advertising (2013), available at http://ftc.gov/os/2013/03/130312dotcomdisclosures.pdf. \5\ Press Release, FTC, As Holiday Shopping Season Gets Underway, FTC Reminds Internet Retailers to Ensure Consumers Have Access to Warranty Information (Dec. 2, 2013), http://www.ftc.gov/news-events/press-releases/2013/12/holiday-shopping-season-gets-underway-ftc-reminds-internet. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- A. Background 1. 16 CFR Part 700: Interpretations of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act (``Interpretations'') The MMWA, 15 U.S.C. 2301-2312, which governs written warranties on consumer products, was signed into law on January 4, 1975. After the Act was passed, the Commission received many questions concerning the Act's requirements. In responding to these inquiries, the Commission initially published, on June 18, 1975, a policy statement in the Federal Register (40 FR 25721) providing interim guidance during the initial implementation of the Act. As the Commission continued to receive questions and requests for advisory opinions, however, it determined that more comprehensive guidance was appropriate. Therefore, on July 13, 1977, the Commission published in the Federal Register (42 FR 36112) its Interpretations of the MMWA to assist warrantors and suppliers of consumer products in complying with the Act. These Interpretations are intended to clarify the Act's requirements for manufacturers, importers, distributors, and retailers. The Interpretations cover a wide range of subjects, including: The types of products considered ``consumer products'' under the Act; the differences between a ``written warranty,'' ``service contract'' and ``insurance''; written warranty term requirements; the use of warranty registration cards under full and limited warranties; and illegal tying arrangements under Section 2302(c) of the Act. These Interpretations, like industry guides, are administrative interpretations of the law. Therefore, they do not have the force of law and are not independently enforceable. The Commission can take action under the Federal Trade Commission Act (``FTC Act'') and the MMWA, however, against claims that are inconsistent with the Interpretations if the Commission has reason to believe that such claims are unfair or deceptive practices under Section 5 or violate the MMWA. 2. 16 CFR Part 701: Disclosure of Written Consumer Product Warranty Terms and Conditions Section 2302(a) of the MMWA authorizes the Commission to promulgate rules regarding the disclosure of written warranty terms. Accordingly, on December 31, 1975, the Commission published in the Federal Register (40 FR 60188) its Rule Governing Disclosure of Written Consumer Product Warranty Terms and Conditions. Rule 701 establishes disclosure requirements for written warranties on consumer products that cost more than $15.00. It also specifies the aspects of warranty coverage that must be disclosed in the written document, as well as the exact language that must be used for certain disclosures regarding state law on the duration of implied warranties and the availability of consequential or incidental damages. Under Rule 701, warranty information must be disclosed in simple, easily understandable, and concise language in a single document. In promulgating Rule 701, the Commission determined that material facts about product warranties, the nondisclosure of which would be deceptive or misleading, must [[Page 42712]] be disclosed.\6\ In addition to specifying the information that must appear in a written warranty, Rule 701 also requires that, if the warrantor of a limited warranty uses a warranty registration or owner registration card, the warranty must disclose whether return of the registration card is a condition precedent to warranty coverage.\7\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \6\ See 40 FR 60168, 60169 (Dec. 31, 1975) (``The items required for disclosure by this Rule are material facts about warranties, the non-disclosure of which constitutes a deceptive practice.''). \7\ Notably, section 2014(b)(1) of the MMWA prohibits warrantors offering a full warranty from imposing duties other than the notification of a defect as a condition of securing warranty remedies. 15 U.S.C. 2304(b)(1). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3. 16 CFR Part 702: Pre-Sale Availability of Written Warranty Terms Section 2302(b)(1)(A) of the MMWA directs the Commission to prescribe rules requiring that the terms of any written warranty on a consumer product be made available to the prospective purchaser prior to the sale of the product. Accordingly, on December 31, 1975, the Commission published Rule 702. Rule 702 establishes requirements for sellers and warrantors to make the text of any warranty on a consumer product available to the consumer prior to sale. Among other things, Rule 702 requires sellers to make warranties readily available either by: (1) Displaying the warranty document in close proximity to the product or (2) furnishing the warranty document on request and posting signs in prominent locations advising consumers that warranties are available. The Rule requires warrantors to provide materials to enable sellers to comply with the Rule's requirements, and also sets out the methods by which warranty information can be made available prior to the sale if the product is sold through catalogs, mail order, or door- to-door sales. As discussed further below, Rule 702 also applies to online sales. 4. 16 CFR Part 703: Informal Dispute Settlement Procedures Section 2310(a)(2) of the MMWA directs the Commission to prescribe the minimum standards for any informal dispute settlement mechanism (``IDSM'' or ``Mechanism'') that a warrantor, by including a ``prior resort'' clause in its written warranty, requires consumers to use before they may file suit under the Act to obtain a remedy for warranty non-performance. Accordingly, on December 31, 1975, the Commission published Rule 703. Rule 703 contains extensive procedural safeguards for consumers that a warrantor must incorporate in any IDSM. These standards include, but are not limited to, requirements concerning the IDSM's structure (e.g., funding, staffing, and neutrality), the qualifications of staff or decision makers, and the IDSM's procedures for resolving disputes, recordkeeping, and annual audits. 5. 16 CFR Part 239: Guides for the Advertising of Warranties and Guarantees The Guides for the Disclosure of Warranties and Guarantees, codified in part 239, provide guidance concerning warranty and guarantee disclosures. Part 239 intends to help advertisers avoid unfair and deceptive practices when advertising warranties and guarantees. The 1985 Guides advise that advertisements mentioning warranties or guarantees should contain a disclosure that the actual warranty document is available for consumers to read before they buy the advertised product. In addition, the Guides set forth advice for using the terms ``satisfaction guarantee,'' ``lifetime,'' and similar representations. Finally, the Guides advise that sellers or manufacturers should not advertise that a product is warranted or guaranteed unless they promptly and fully perform their warranty obligations. The Guides are advisory in nature. B. Analysis of the Comments on the Interpretations, Rule 701, Rule 702, Rule 703, and the Guides Twenty-nine entities and individuals submitted public comments in response to the August 23, 2011 Federal Register request for public comment.\8\ Comments generally reflect a strong level of support for the view that the Interpretations, Rules, and Guides are achieving the objectives they were fashioned to achieve--i.e., to facilitate the consumer's ability to obtain clear, accurate warranty information. A majority of the commenters, though endorsing retention of the present regulatory scheme, suggested modifications to the Interpretations, Rules, and Guides, which they believe would provide greater consumer protections and minimize burdens on firms subject to the regulations. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \8\ 76 FR 52596 (Aug. 23, 2011). Public comments in response to the Commission's 2011 FRN are located at http://www.ftc.gov/policy/public-comments/initiative-392. Comments cited herein to the Federal Register notice are designated as such, and are identified by commenter name, and, where applicable, page number. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. 16 CFR Part 700: Interpretations a. Amend Sec. 700.10 To Provide Further Guidance on Prohibited Tying Generally, the MMWA prohibits warrantors from conditioning warranties on the consumer's use of a replacement product or repair service identified by brand or name, unless the article or service is provided without charge to the consumer or the warrantor has received a waiver.\9\ The Commission's Interpretations illustrate this concept by stating that phrases such as this warranty is void if service is performed by anyone other than an authorized ``ABC'' dealer and all replacement parts must be genuine ``ABC'' parts and the like, are prohibited unless the service or parts are provided free of charge. Such provisions violate the MMWA's ban on tying arrangements and are deceptive under Section 5 of the FTC Act, because a warrantor cannot avoid liability under a warranty where the defect or damage is unrelated to the consumer's use of ``unauthorized'' parts or service. This does not, however, preclude the warrantor from denying warranty coverage for repairs associated with defects or damage caused by the use of the ``unauthorized'' parts or service.\10\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \9\ See 15 U.S.C. 2302(c). The Commission may waive this prohibition if the warrantor demonstrates to the Commission that the warranted product will function properly only if the article or service so identified is used in connection with the warranted product, and the waiver is in the public interest. 15 U.S.C. 2302(c). \10\ 16 CFR 700.10. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Several commenters \11\ assert that the Commission's Interpretations do not address the market realities of manufacturers' statements about the use of branded products. These commenters state that automotive and other consumer product manufacturers have employed language in consumer materials ``to suggest that warranty coverage directly or impliedly `requires' the use of a branded product or service'' \12\ leading reasonable consumers to believe that coverage under a written warranty will be void if [[Page 42713]] non-original parts or non-dealer services are utilized.\13\ Commenters suggest that these statements lead consumers to doubt the viability of non-original (or recycled) parts.\14\ ``Faced with such a choice a consumer is likely to use the `required' product in order to avoid the risk that they may later face potentially expensive repairs that may not be covered under their warranty, resulting in a `tie' created via warranty.'' \15\ Accordingly, these commenters request that the Commission ``make clear that warranty language that creates the impression that the use of a branded product or service is required in order to maintain warranty coverage is . . . impermissible.'' \16\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \11\ Ashland; Automotive Oil Change Association; Automotive Recyclers Association; BP Lubricants; Certified Auto Parts Association; Hunton & Williams; International Imaging Technology Council; LKQ Corporation; Motor & Equipment Manufacturers Association; Monro Muffler Brake; Property Casualty Insurers Association of America; and the Uniform Standards in Automotive Products Coalition (``USAP Coalition''). One commenter, the American Insurance Association, urges the Commission not to change Sec. 700.10. The Coalition for Auto Repair Equality urges the Commission to uphold MMWA's tying prohibitions. Grandpa's Garage comments that GM's recommendation that consumers use its branded oil is helpful because GM explains the right products to use for repair and the prevention of premature failure. Consumer J. McKee generally supports the tying prohibitions. \12\ USAP Coalition at 6. \13\ Hunton & Williams at 4. \14\ Automotive Recyclers Association at 2. \15\ Id. \16\ USAP Coalition at 3. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- The MMWA incorporates principles under Section 5 of the FTC Act that prohibit warrantors from disseminating deceptive statements concerning warranty coverage. The MMWA gives the Commission the authority to restrain a warrantor from making a deceptive warranty, which is defined as a warranty that ``fails to contain information which is necessary in light of all of the circumstances, to make the warranty not misleading to a reasonable individual exercising due care.'' \17\ Thus, a warrantor would violate the MMWA if its warranty led a reasonable consumer exercising due care to believe that the warranty conditioned coverage ``on the consumer's use of an article or service identified by brand, trade or corporate name unless that article or service is provided without charge to the consumer.'' \18\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \17\ 15 U.S.C. 2310(c). \18\ 16 CFR 700.10. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Moreover, misstatements leading a consumer to believe that the consumer's warranty is void because a consumer used ``unauthorized'' parts or service may also be deceptive under Section 5 of the FTC Act.\19\ Specifically, claims by a warrantor that create a false impression that a warranty would be void due to the use of ``unauthorized'' parts or service may constitute a deceptive practice as outlined in the FTC Policy Statement on Deception: ``The deception theory is based on the fact that most ads making objective claims imply, and many expressly state, that an advertiser has certain specific grounds for the claims. If the advertiser does not, the consumer is acting under a false impression. The consumer might have perceived the advertising differently had he or she known the advertiser had no basis for the claim.'' \20\ A warrantor claiming or suggesting that a warranty is void simply because a consumer used ``unauthorized'' parts or service would have no basis for such a claim (absent a Commission waiver pursuant to Section 2302(c) of the Act). This is consistent with staff's view, as expressed in recent opinion letters, that misinformation and misleading statements in conjunction with warranty coverage may be actionable.\21\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \19\ 15 U.S.C. 45(a). See generally Letter from James C. Miller III, Chairman, Fed. Trade Comm'n, et al., to Rep. John D. Dingell (Oct. 14, 1983), reprinted in Cliffdale Assocs., Inc., 103 F.T.C. 110, 174 (1984), available at https://www.ftc.gov/public-statements/1983/10/ftc-policy-statement-deception (hereinafter ``FTC Policy Statement on Deception'') at 2. \20\ FTC Policy Statement on Deception, supra note 19 at n14; see also 15 U.S.C. 2310(c)(2). \21\ Consumer Alert on Auto Warranties, supra note 3. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Therefore, to clarify the tying prohibition of the MMWA, Sec. 700.10(c) will be changed as described in amendatory instruction 11. b. Require a Mandatory Disclosure Statement in Companies' Warranties Several commenters \22\ ask the Commission to mandate that warrantors providing a warranty to a consumer in connection with a motor vehicle incorporate standard language in their warranties, akin to the FTC's Consumer Alert on Auto Warranties.\23\ These commenters state that, although the FTC's Consumer Alert on Auto Warranties informs consumers of their rights under the MMWA, consumers should receive information about these rights in an owner's manual or warranty document pursuant to a Commission-mandated disclosure. These commenters ask the Commission to amend its Interpretations so that these warrantors would be required to provide in boldface type on the first page of a written automobile warranty: ``Warranty coverage cannot be denied unless the warrantor or service provide[r] [sic] can demonstrate that the defect or damage was caused by the use of unauthorized articles or services.'' \24\ Commenters base their recommendation, in part, on the language mandated by the Clean Air Act for use in user manuals, namely, that ``maintenance, replacement, or repair of the emissions control devices and systems may be performed by any automotive repair establishment or individual using any automotive part.'' \25\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \22\ Ashland at 3; Automotive Oil Change Association at 2; Certified Automotive Parts Association at 2-3; International Imaging Technology Council at 6-7; LKQ Corporation at 10; Monro Muffler Brake at 1-2; USAP Coalition at 14-15. \23\ The Consumer Alert on Auto Warranties informs consumers, among other things, that unless they have been provided parts or services without charge under the warranty, they do not have to use the dealer for repairs and maintenance to keep their warranty in effect, stating, ``An independent mechanic, a retail chain shop, or even you yourself can do routine maintenance and repairs on your vehicle. In fact, the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, which is enforced by the FTC, makes it illegal for manufacturers or dealers to claim that your warranty is void or to deny coverage under your warranty simply because someone other than the dealer did the work.'' Consumer Alert on Auto Warranties, supra note 3. \24\ USAP Coalition at 14. Elsewhere, however, the commenters propose other specific language for the Commission to add to its Interpretations that would not be limited to mandatory disclosures in warranty documents but would extend to owner's manuals and other communications with prospective consumers. USAP Coalition at 20, Att. B; Automotive Oil Change Association at 6 (referring to ``warranty documents and related communications.''). \25\ USAP Coalition at 14, citing 42 U.S.C. 7541(c)(3)(A). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- The Commission declines to make this change. As an initial matter, the MMWA, unlike the Clean Air Act, does not require a mandatory disclaimer on all warranties. Further, the current record lacks sufficient evidence to justify the imposition of a mandatory warranty disclosure requirement for a subset of warrantors.\26\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \26\ The Specialty Equipment Market Association (``SEMA'') asks the Commission to prepare a supplemental consumer alert to specifically reference ``specialty parts.'' SEMA at 2. A supplemental consumer alert is not necessary as the existing consumer alert applies to all non-original (or recycled) parts. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- c. Clarify That Use of an Aftermarket or Recycled Component is Not a Prima Facie Justification for Warranty Denial One commenter \27\ asks the Commission to clarify that the use of aftermarket components is not a prima facie justification for warranty denial. The Interpretations and related educational materials already make clear that the mere use of an aftermarket (or recycled) component alone is not a sufficient justification for warranty denial. As discussed above, a warrantor cannot disclaim warranty coverage if a defect or damage is unrelated to the consumer's use of ``unauthorized'' products or service, unless the warrantor provides the service or part without charge under the warranty or receives a Commission waiver.\28\ A warrantor can refuse coverage where the warrantor can demonstrate that the defect or damage was caused by the use of the ``unauthorized'' part or service.\29\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \27\ Ashland at 2. \28\ 16 CFR 700.10(c). \29\ Id. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Several commenters ask the Commission to better educate consumers on how to identify and report warranty tying in the marketplace. In July 2011, the staff [[Page 42714]] issued a consumer alert highlighting MMWA's tying prohibitions. The alert explained: ``Simply using an aftermarket or recycled part does not void your warranty. The Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act makes it illegal for companies to void your warranty or deny coverage under the warranty simply because you used an aftermarket or recycled part.'' \30\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \30\ See Consumer Alert on Auto Warranties, supra note 3. As stated in the updated consumer alert, the manufacturer or dealer can, however, require consumers to use select parts if those parts are provided to consumers free of charge under the warranty. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- d. Require That Warrantors Have Substantiation for Their Performance Claims Regarding Non-Original Parts Several commenters \31\ ask the Commission to require that warrantors have substantiation for their claims that original equipment manufacturer (``OEM'') parts work better than non-original or recycled parts. This specific request is outside the purview of the Act and relates generally to the requirement under Section 5 of the FTC Act that companies have sufficient basis for their claims. Section 5 requires warrantors making performance claims regarding non-original or recycled parts to have a reasonable basis for those claims, thereby ensuring that such claims are not unfair, deceptive, false, or misleading. Similarly, advertisers must have adequate substantiation-- or a reasonable basis--for any advertising claims they make before the claims are disseminated. Under the substantiation doctrine, ``firms lacking a reasonable basis before an ad is disseminated violate Section 5 of the FTC Act.'' \32\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \31\ Ashland at 6-7; LKQ Corporation at 8; USAP Coalition at 15- 16. \32\ FTC Policy Statement Regarding Advertising Substantiation, appended to Thompson Med. Co., 104 F.T.C. 648, 839 (1984), aff'd, 791 F.2d 189 (D.C. Cir. 1986). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- e. Require Warranty Denial To Be in Writing The Commission's Interpretations state that a warrantor is not precluded from denying warranty coverage for defects or damage caused by the use of ``unauthorized'' parts or service if the warrantor ``demonstrates'' that the ``unauthorized'' parts or service caused a defect or damage to the vehicle.\33\ Commenters \34\ state that, in some instances, warrantors have denied warranty coverage without sufficiently demonstrating to consumers that the use of ``unauthorized'' parts or service caused defects or damage to the consumer's vehicle by, for example, giving consumers a copy of a service bulletin or just ``say[ing] so.'' \35\ Commenters therefore ask the Commission to require, in its Interpretations, that warrantors provide consumers with a written statement to support any warranty denial claim. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \33\ 16 CFR 700.10(c). \34\ Ashland at 3; Automotive Oil Change Association at 6-7; BP Lubricants at 3, Certified Auto Parts Association at 4-5; SEMA at 3; USAP Coalition at 15-16. \35\ Certified Auto Parts Association at 5. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- The Commission does not believe a change is warranted because the current record lacks sufficient evidence showing that warrantors routinely deny warranty coverage orally without demonstrating to the consumer that the ``unauthorized'' part or service caused damage to the vehicle. At this time, the Commission believes the existing Interpretations adequately address this issue. Simply providing a consumer with a copy of a service bulletin or denying coverage with a bald, unsupported statement that the ``unauthorized'' parts or service caused the vehicle damage would be insufficient under the Commission's existing Interpretations. Warrantors must have a basis for warranty denials by demonstrating to consumers that the use of ``unauthorized'' parts or service caused the defect or damage to the vehicle. Further, denying warranty coverage by simply pointing to a service bulletin that informs consumers that only ``authorized'' parts or service should be used to maintain warranty coverage may also violate the MMWA's proscriptions against tying.\36\ Therefore, whether the demonstration is in writing or oral, a warrantor denying warranty coverage due to the use of ``unauthorized'' parts or service must show that such use caused the defect or damage to the vehicle. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \36\ 16 CFR 700.10(c). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- f. The Scope of Auto Dealers' Responsibilities Under the MMWA and Interpretations Two commenters \37\ address the scope of auto dealers' (which fall under MMWA's definition of ``supplier'' \38\) responsibilities under the MMWA and Interpretations.\39\ First, the National Consumer Law Center (``NCLC'') asks the Commission to add an interpretation stating that a supplier enters into a service contract with a consumer whenever the supplier offers a service contract to the consumer, irrespective of whether the supplier is obligated to perform under the service contract.\40\ The Commission declines to add the requested interpretation. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \37\ Center for Auto Safety at 2; NCLC at 10. \38\ The MMWA defines ``supplier'' as ``any person engaged in the business of making a consumer product directly or indirectly available to consumers.'' 15 U.S.C. 2301(4). \39\ Center for Auto Safety at 2. \40\ NCLC at 10. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Existing staff guidance provides that ``sellers of consumer products that merely sell service contracts as agents of service contract companies and do not themselves extend written warranties'' do not ``enter into'' service contracts.\41\ This guidance parallels the MMWA's provisions concerning a seller's liability under the MMWA for merely selling a third party's warranty: ``only the warrantor actually making a written affirmation of fact, promise, or undertaking shall be deemed to have created a written warranty, and any rights arising thereunder may be enforced under this section only against such warrantor and no other person.'' \42\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \41\ See FTC, The Businessperson's Guide to Federal Warranty Law, available at http://www.business.ftc.gov/documents/bus01-businesspersons-guide-federal-warranty-law; 15 U.S.C. 2308(a)(2). \42\ 15 U.S.C. 2310(f). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- In keeping with the MMWA, the Commission's Interpretations concerning parties ``actually making'' a written warranty provide that a supplier who simply distributes or sells a consumer product warranted by another person or business is not liable for failure of the written warranty to comply with the Act.\43\ Accordingly, the Commission will not add the requested interpretation concerning service contracts. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \43\ 16 CFR 700.4. Section 700.4 further provides, however, that other actions and written and oral representations of such a supplier in connection with the offer or sale of a warranted product may obligate that supplier under the Act. If under State law the supplier is deemed to have ``adopted'' the written affirmation of fact, promise, or undertaking, the supplier is also obligated under the Act. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- The second commenter, the Center for Auto Safety, seeks clarity to address the discrepancy it perceives between the MMWA and the staff's guidance concerning the circumstances under which an auto dealer (i.e., supplier) can disclaim implied warranties when offering service contracts. It argues that, on one hand, Section 2308(a)(2) of the MMWA states: ``no supplier may disclaim or modify . . . any implied warranty to a consumer with respect to such consumer product if . . . at the time of sale, or within 90 days thereafter, such supplier enters into a service contract with the consumer which applies to such consumer product.'' \44\ On the other hand, the FTC's Businessperson's Guide to Federal Warranty Law states: ``[s]ellers of consumer products who make service contracts on their products are [[Page 42715]] prohibited under the Act from disclaiming or limiting implied warranties. . . . However, sellers of consumer products that merely sell service contracts as agents of service contract companies and do not themselves extend written warranties can disclaim implied warranties on the products they sell.'' \45\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \44\ 15 U.S.C. 2308(a)(2). \45\ The Businessperson's Guide to Federal Warranty Law, supra note 41. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- The Commission does not believe any discrepancy exists. The confusion may stem from the usage of the word ``supplier,'' defined in the MMWA as: ``any person engaged in the business of making a consumer product directly or indirectly available to consumers.'' \46\ Thus, ``supplier'' can mean either the entity that ``enters into a service contract with the consumer'' or the entity that ``merely sells'' a third-party's service contract, without more. The latter, as explained previously,\47\ has not entered into a service contract with the consumer, and therefore Section 2308(a)(2) would not apply.\48\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \46\ 15 U.S.C. 2301(4). \47\ The Businessperson's Guide to Federal Warranty Law, supra note 41. \48\ 15 U.S.C. 2308(a)(2). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Suppliers, however, are not immune from liability. If a supplier sells a service contract that obligates it to perform under the contract, it will be deemed to have entered into the service contract within the meaning of the statute. In addition, suppliers who extend service contracts utilizing misrepresentations or material omissions may be subject to liability under the MMWA and Section 5 of the FTC Act.\49\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \49\ 15 U.S.C. 2306(b) (requiring warrantors and suppliers to clearly and conspicuously disclose service contract terms and conditions); 15 U.S.C. 45. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Enforce the Act Commenters \50\ encourage the Commission to enforce the MMWA. The Commission enforces the Act by monitoring consumer complaints, reviewing audit reports, advising warrantors of their obligations, educating consumers and businesses, and taking enforcement action where appropriate.\51\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \50\ LKQ Corp. at 1 and 5; Motor & Equipment Manufacturers Association at 2-3. \51\ See, e.g., Compl., BMW of N. Am., LLC, File No. 132 3150, available at https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/documents/cases/150319bmwcmpt.pdf (Fed. Trade Comm'n March 19, 2015); Consumer Alert on Auto Warranties, supra note 3. Consumers or businesses may file complaints with the Commission online through https://www.ftccomplaintassistant.gov or by calling the Commission's toll- free number, 1-877-FTC-HELP (1-877-382-4357). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- g. Apply Rules to Leases And Define ``Lease'' NCLC urges the Commission to amend Sec. 700.10 to clarify that the MMWA covers consumer leases.\52\ The majority of courts have found that a lessee meets the definition of ``consumer'' in the MMWA because warranty rights are transferred to lessees or the lessees are permitted to enforce the contract under state law, among other reasons.\53\ As NCLC notes, however, some courts have held that a lessee does not meet the definition of ``consumer.'' These courts have generally found that the definition of ``consumer'' presupposes a transaction that qualifies as a sale under the Act, and that the lease transaction at issue was not a qualifying sale.\54\ NCLC therefore asks the Commission to add a new Interpretation, as Sec. 700.13, titled, ``consumer leases,'' to provide explicitly that the Act applies to consumer leases.\55\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \52\ NCLC at 3. \53\ See, e.g., Voelker v. Porsche Cars N. Am., Inc., 353 F.3d 516 (7th Cir. 2003); Mago v. Mercedes-Benz, U.S.A., Inc., 142 P.3d 712 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2006); Am. Honda Motor Co. v. Cerasani, 955 So.2d 543 (Fla. 2007). \54\ See, e.g., Stark v. Maserati N. Am., Inc., 2010 WL 4916981 (E.D.N.Y. Oct. 13, 2010); DiCintio v. DaimlerChrysler Corp., 768 NE.2d 1121 (N.Y. 2002). \55\ NCLC at 5. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- The Commission does not agree with the view held by a minority number of courts that lessees cannot be a ``consumer'' under the MMWA because each prong of the ``consumer'' definition \56\ presupposes a sale to the end-consumer (which in this case is a lessee). Rather, as the majority of courts have held, lessees meet the definition of a ``consumer'' because warranty rights are either transferred to lessees or the lessees are permitted to enforce the contract under state law.\57\ Given that a majority of courts hold that the MMWA applies to certain leases, consistent with past agency guidance,\58\ a new Interpretation is not necessary. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \56\ 15 U.S.C. 2301(3) (``The term `consumer' means a buyer (other than for purposes of resale) of any consumer product, any person to whom such product is transferred during the duration of an implied or written warranty (or service contract) applicable to the product, and any other person who is entitled by the terms of such warranty (or service contract) or under applicable State law to enforce against the warrantor (or service contractor) the obligations of the warranty (or service contract).''). \57\ See, e.g., supra note 53. \58\ The agency has provided similar guidance. See Advisory Opinion from Rachel Dawson to Raymond Asher (June 10, 1976) (``A leased product would be covered if the lease is essentially equivalent to a sale. For example, a product would be covered if the total compensation to be paid by the lessee is substantially equivalent to or in excess of the value of the product, and the lessee will own the product, or has an option to buy it for a nominal consideration, upon full compliance with his obligations under the lease.''). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- h. Certain 50/50 Warranties Should Be Interpreted To Violate the Act's Anti-Tying Prohibition NCLC urges the Commission to reconsider its 2002 opinion letter \59\ finding ``50/50 warranties'' permissible under the Act. Fifty/ fifty warranties are those where the dealer promises to pay 50% of the labor costs and 50% of the parts cost, and the consumer pays the remainder. NCLC argues that allowing the warrantor to choose the repairs or parts is contrary to the goals of the MMWA, and leads to monopolistic pricing practices and a decrease in competition.\60\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \59\ NCLC at 6-7, citing Letter from Donald S. Clark to Keith E. Whann (Dec. 2, 2002), available at http://www.ftc.gov/system/files/documents/advisory_opinions/national-independent-automobile-dealer-association/clark_to_whann_letter.pdf. \60\ NCLC at 6. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Although the Commission found that 50/50 warranties may violate the Act in certain circumstances in its 1999 rule review, in 2002, the Commission clarified its position on 50/50 warranties. The Commission stated that the Act prohibits warrantors from conditioning their warranties on the use of branded parts or service where the warranted articles or services are ``severable from the dealer's responsibilities under the warranty.'' \61\ Therefore, when a warranty covers only replacement parts, and the consumer pays the labor charges, the warrantor cannot mandate specific service or labor to install those parts. Conversely, when a warranty covers only labor charges, and the consumer pays for parts, the warrantor cannot mandate the use of specific parts. With 50/50 warranties, however, ``the warranting dealer has a direct interest in providing the warranty service for which it is partly financially responsible. . . . Rather than conditioning the warranty on the purchase of a separate product or service not covered by the warranty, a 50/50 warranty shares the cost of a single product or service.'' \62\ For that reason, the warrantor needs some control over the repair needed and quality of repair.\63\ The Commission has decided to retain its 2002 position on 50/50 warranties. The Commission has reviewed the issue and believes that its 2002 interpretation continues to be correct. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \61\ Letter from Donald S. Clark to Keith E. Whann (Dec. 2, 2002), supra note 59. \62\ Id. at 2. \63\ Id. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- [[Page 42716]] i. The Commission's Interpretation Under Sec. 700.11(a) Conflicts With the McCarran-Ferguson Act and Supreme Court Precedent NCLC asserts that the Commission has incorrectly interpreted the meaning of the McCarran-Ferguson Act in Sec. 700.11(a).\64\ The McCarran-Ferguson Act provides that ``[n]o Act of Congress shall be construed to invalidate, impair, or supersede any law enacted by any State for the purpose of regulating the business of insurance, or which imposes a fee or tax upon such business, unless such Act specifically relates to the business of insurance: Provided, That . . . the Sherman Act, . . . the Clayton Act, and . . . the Federal Trade Commission Act . . . shall be applicable to the business of insurance to the extent that such business is not regulated by State Law.'' \65\ Section 700.11 states that agreements regulated by state law as insurance are subject to the MMWA ``only to the extent they are not regulated in a particular state as the business of insurance.'' \66\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \64\ NCLC at 9. \65\ 15 U.S.C. 1012(b). \66\ 16 CFR 700.11(a). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- NCLC states that the Interpretation is inconsistent with both the McCarran-Ferguson Act and Supreme Court precedent.\67\ First, NCLC argues that because the MMWA is not one of the three enumerated statutes (the Sherman Act, Clayton Act or the FTC Act), the correct standard is the standard applicable to all other federal statutes. In other words, the MMWA can regulate the business of insurance so long as it does not ``invalidate, impair, or supersede'' state law. Therefore, even if a state regulates a service agreement as the business of insurance, the MMWA may still apply.\68\ Second, NCLC asserts the Commission's Interpretation is contrary to Supreme Court precedent, Humana v. Forsyth, 525 U.S. 299 (1999). There, the Supreme Court held that states' regulation of insurance fraud would not displace remedies under federal law for the same misconduct because they do not ``impair the insurance regulatory scheme.'' \69\ Consequently, NCLC states, ``even though state insurance law provides a remedial scheme for breach of a service contract regulated as insurance, the additional availability of Magnuson-Moss remedies for the same misconduct does not `impair' the insurance regulatory scheme.'' \70\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \67\ NCLC at 8-9. \68\ Id. at 8. \69\ Id. at 9. \70\ Id. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- The Commission agrees that the McCarran-Ferguson Act's ``invalidate, impair, or supersede'' standard is applicable to the MMWA. The Commission will revise the Interpretation as described in amendatory instruction 12. j. Amend Definition of ``Consumer Product'' SEMA asks the Commission to amend the definition of ``consumer product'' to include specialty equipment.\71\ The Commission has determined that no definitional change is warranted because specialty equipment is already covered by the definition of ``consumer product.'' ``Consumer product'' is defined as ``any tangible personal property which is distributed in commerce and which is normally used for personal, family, or household purposes.'' \72\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \71\ SEMA at 2. Specialty equipment includes performance, functional, restoration and styling-enhancement products for use on passenger cars and light-duty trucks. Id. at 1. \72\ 16 CFR 701.1(b). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2. 16 CFR Part 701: Disclosure of Terms and Conditions (Rule 701) a. Regulate Service Contract Disclosures The request for public comment specifically asked whether the Commission should amend the Rules to cover service-contract disclosures.\73\ The Commission received six comments on this issue: four commenters urge the Commission not to add specific service- contract disclosure requirements, while two commenters take the opposite view.\74\ The four opponents of disclosure rules for service contracts state that service contracts are different from warranties in that they do not form the basis of the bargain. They argue that no federal regulation is needed because states already regulate service contracts and adding federal regulation to the mix would create unnecessary burdens to both the industry and to federal and state governments.\75\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \73\ The Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers (``AHAM'') asks for additional changes to Rule 701. First, AHAM asks the Commission to amend Rule 701.3 by adding that any warrantor complying with the Rule is entitled to a presumption in any breach of warranty litigation that the warranty is not unconscionable, deceptive, or misleading. AHAM at 2. It argues that consumers file hundreds of class actions each year asking courts to invalidate or modify the terms of a written warranty. Id. Although Rule 701.3 sets out minimum federal disclosure requirements for consumer product warranties, warrantors must also follow the proscriptions of Section 5 of the FTC Act, prohibiting unfair and deceptive practices, and various applicable state laws. Because there are other laws governing unfairness or deception in warranties, the Commission does not believe it would be appropriate to create a new provision in the Warranty Rules specifying that warrantors complying with Rule 701.3 are entitled to a presumption that their warranties are not unconscionable, deceptive, or misleading. Second, AHAM asks the Commission to amend Rule 701.3 by adding that a warrantor can exclude any latent defects that may manifest after the written warranty period expires. Id. at 3. AHAM asserts that many lawsuits seek to expand or modify the express warranty's terms after sale, and beyond the contractually-limited time period, to cover an alleged latent defect that manifests itself post-warranty period. However, Rule 701.3 focuses on disclosure requirements for consumer product warranties. It requires the disclosure of several items of material information in a clear and conspicuous manner. Rule 701.3 does not mandate specific warranty coverage. Nor does the Rule itself cover post-warranty conduct. Therefore, no change is warranted. Mr. Steinborn asks the Commission to modify Rule 701 so that third-party manufacturers or re-fillers of consumables, such as ink and toner, must include a marking prominently displayed on the consumable that clearly directs the end user to contact the party that remanufactured the consumable (or its designee) for all warranty claims and information. Steinborn at 2. However, Rule 701 already requires that warranty terms include a step-by-step explanation of the procedure which the consumer should follow in order to obtain performance of any warranty obligation. 16 CFR 701.3(a)(5). For this reason, the Commission has chosen not to incorporate the specific change advocated by Mr. Steinborn. \74\ Opponents of federal service-contract disclosure regulations are the AHAM, Florida Service Agreement Association, Service Contract Industry Council, and Property Casualty Insurers Association of America. Mr. Johnson and NCLC support the Commission's promulgation of service-contract disclosure regulations. \75\ See Florida Service Agreement Association at 2-3; Service Contract Industry Council at 2-3. For example, the Service Contract Industry Council states that thirty-five states specifically regulate service contracts on consumer goods, thirty-five states regulate service contracts on homes, and thirty-eight states regulate service contracts on motor vehicles. Commenters assert that many of these state laws provide greater protection to consumers than the MMWA by, for example, ``ensuring that service contract obligors are financially sound and that their obligations to consumers are secure.'' Because the MMWA preempts state warranty law unless the state law ``affords protection to consumers greater than the requirement of Magnuson-Moss,'' these commenters argue that additional federal regulations may have little practical effect. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- On the other hand, two commenters, Mr. Evan Johnson and NCLC, argue that the Commission should amend the Rules to prescribe the manner and form in which service-contract terms are disclosed. Mr. Johnson argues that service contracts have been a ``huge source'' of consumer complaints. ``Many of these complaints concern marketing but many also arise from the unclear wording and structure of the contracts.'' \76\ NCLC provides two reasons why the Commission should specifically regulate service contracts. First, the reasons for mandatory disclosure requirements for warranties apply equally to service contracts; regulating one and not the other makes little sense.\77\ Second, service contracts [[Page 42717]] are widely sold and expensive, and consumers have little information concerning costs, coverage, and claims process.\78\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \76\ Johnson at 4. \77\ NCLC at 12. \78\ Id. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- The Commission does not believe such a rule amendment is needed because the MMWA and Section 5 already require that warrantors, suppliers, and service contract providers clearly and conspicuously disclose service contract terms and conditions. Section 2306(b) of the Act provides: ``[n]othing in this chapter shall be construed to prevent a supplier or warrantor from entering into a service contract with the consumer in addition to or in lieu of a written warranty if such contract fully, clearly, and conspicuously discloses its terms and conditions in simple and readily understood language.'' \79\ In addition, Section 5 prohibits service contract providers from failing to clearly and conspicuously disclose material terms and conditions or otherwise deceiving consumers with respect to the scope and nature of service contracts. This is in accord with the Businessperson's Guidance to the MMWA: ``If you offer a service contract, the Act requires you to list conspicuously all terms and conditions in simple and readily understood language.'' \80\ The Commission has issued a number of consumer education pieces on service contracts and extended warranties and will take action where warranted.\81\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \79\ 15 U.S.C. 2306(b). \80\ The Businessperson's Guide to Federal Warranty Law, supra note 41. \81\ See, e.g., FTC, Auto Service Contracts and Warranties, http://www.consumer.ftc.gov/articles/0054-auto-service-contracts-and-warranties; see also FTC v. Voicetouch, Civ. No. 09CV2929 (N.D. Ill., filed May 13, 2009) (action involving deceptive telemarketing of extended auto warranties); FTC v. Transcontinental Warranty, Inc., Civ. No. 09CV2927 (N.D. Ill., filed May 13, 2009) (same). The Commission will continue to examine service contract disclosures. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3. 16 CFR Part 702: Pre-Sale Availability Rule (Rule 702) Generally, under Rule 702, sellers who offer written warranties on consumer products must include certain information in their warranties and make them available for review at the point of purchase. The Commission's request for public comment asked whether the Commission should amend Rule 702 to specifically address making warranty documents accessible online. The Commission received seven comments on this specific question.\82\ One commenter noted at the outset that Rule 702 ``continues to be very important to consumers. Consumers are very aware of warranties and use warranty differences as a basis for choosing a product. The current rule is a reasonable and cost-effective approach to providing the information.'' \83\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \82\ AHAM at 3; Center for Auto Safety at 2; Eisenberg at 1; Johnson at 2-3; National Automobile Dealers Association at 2; National Independent Automobile Dealers Association at 2; Steinborn at 2-3. Ms. Eisenberg asks the Commission to amend the Rule to permit private actions for violations of Rule 702. However, the MMWA already provides a private cause of action to any consumer ``who is damaged by the failure of a supplier, warrantor, or service contractor to comply with any obligation'' under the MMWA. 15 U.S.C. 2310(d)(1). \83\ Johnson at 2. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Three commenters ask the Commission to specifically reference Internet sales in Rule 702 and provide additional guidance on how retailers can comply with the Rule by referring consumers to warrantors' Web sites.\84\ Although Rule 702 does not explicitly mention online commerce, it applies to the sale of warranted consumer products online. Staff recently updated the .Com Disclosures to provide additional guidance on disclosure obligations in the online context. As stated in the updated .Com Disclosures, warranties communicated through visual text online are no different than paper versions and the same rules apply.\85\ Online sellers of consumer products can easily comply with the pre-sale availability rule in a number of ways. Online sellers can, for example, use ``a clearly-labeled hyperlink, in close conjunction to the description of the warranted product, such as `get warranty information here' to lead to the full text of the warranty.'' \86\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \84\ AHAM at 3; National Independent Automobile Dealers Association at 2; Steinborn at 2-3. The Center for Auto Safety recommends that Rule 702.3 point of sale requirements be maintained and enforced, requiring hard copy warranty materials to be available at physical retail locations, not on CD or DVD. Staff's guidance allows warranties to be available on CDs and DVDs, but does not allow sellers to meet their pre-sale obligations by referring consumers to CDs or DVDs that are not readily accessible at the point of sale. See Letter from Allyson Himelfarb to Thomas M. Hughes (Feb. 17, 2009), available at http://www.ftc.gov/bcp/warranties/opinion0901.pdf. \85\ See .com Disclosures, supra note 4, at 3, n7. \86\ Id. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- As with other online disclosures, warranty information should be displayed clearly and conspicuously. Therefore, for example, warranty terms buried within voluminous ``terms and conditions'' do not satisfy the Rule's requirement that warranty terms be in close proximity to the warranted product. Further, general references to warranty coverage, such as ``one year warranty applies,'' are also not sufficient.\87\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \87\ FTC Staff has found several instances in which online sellers have not fully complied with the pre-sale availability rule and has contacted these sellers to inform them of their obligations. http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2013/12/warningletters.shtm --------------------------------------------------------------------------- The Commission however, does not agree with the view endorsed by commenters \88\ that offline sellers can comply with the pre-sale availability rule by advising buyers of the availability of warranties on the warrantor's Web site. The intent of the Rule is to make warranty information available at the point of sale. For brick and mortar transactions, the point of sale is in the store; for online transactions, the point of sale is where consumers purchase the product online. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \88\ AHAM at 4-5; see also Steinborn at 2 (``Where manufacturers and resellers have Internet presences, click-through access to and/ or a conspicuous reference to the manufacturers' Web site containing the applicable warranty should be recognized as sufficient means for sellers to meet the requirements of 702.''). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- The Commission agrees with the commenter who notes: ``Internet availability, however, is not a substitute for availability as specified in Rule 702 because many consumers make little or no use of the internet, while those who do still need the information at the point of sale as a fallback for when they haven't obtained the information online or when they want to verify that their online information is accurate.'' \89\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \89\ Johnson at 2. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- In sum, because Rule 702 already covers the sale of consumer products online, and because staff has updated its .Com Guidance concerning compliance with pre-sale obligations online, the Commission has chosen not to engage in additional rulemaking as to Rule 702 at this time. 4. Rule 703--Informal Dispute Settlement Procedures The Commission's request for public comment specifically asked whether it should change Rule 703, and if so, how. Six commenters submitted responses to this question.\90\ At the outset, commenters highlighted the importance of the Rule in serving as a standard for IDSMs in general, and more specifically, in providing a benchmark for state lemon law IDSMs and certification programs for IDSMs. Many states' criteria focus on the IDSM's compliance with Rule 703's provisions. Therefore, commenters stressed that any repeal or change to Rule 703 will also affect state lemon law and certification programs.\91\ Notwithstanding this fact, some commenters ask the Commission to change certain elements of the Rule, [[Page 42718]] including the Mechanism's procedure, record-keeping, and audit requirements, and also reassess the Commission's position on binding arbitration clauses in warranty contracts. These comments are discussed below. Overall, the Commission leaves Rule 703 unchanged. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \90\ AHAM at 6; Center for Auto Safety at 1; Johnson at 3; International Association of Lemon Law Administrators at 1; NCLC at 14-15; Nowicki at 1-2. \91\ See International Association of Lemon Law Administrators at 1. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- a. Modify the IDSM Procedures AHAM claims that the procedures prescribed in Rule 703 are difficult to follow and implement.\92\ It urges the Commission to simplify the procedures so they would be ``more easily and widely implemented by warrantors.'' \93\ It further asserts that ``a change would benefit consumers, businesses, and courts by streamlining the dispute resolution procedure and, thereby, reducing the burden on state and federal courts of adjudicating some warranty disputes, as many more could be handled through informal, but structured proceedings.'' \94\ AHAM does not proffer any specific changes that should be made, or provide examples of why the procedures described in Rule 703 are difficult to follow. As the Commission stated in 1975 when adopting the Rule, ``[t]he intent is to avoid creating artificial or unnecessary procedural burdens so long as the basic goals of speed, fairness, and independent participation are met.'' \95\ Further, staff's review of IDSM audits have not indicated any significant concern with IDSM procedures. The Commission therefore retains the Rule 703 procedures. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \92\ AHAM at 6. \93\ Id. \94\ Id. \95\ 40 FR 60168, 60193 (Dec. 31, 1975). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- b. Change Rules on Mechanism and Auditor Impartiality Two commenters \96\ state that Rule 703.4 should be amended because neither the Mechanism nor the auditor, who is selected by the Mechanism, is impartial. Mr. Nowicki asks the Commission to require the Mechanism to be completely independent of any warrantor or trade association. Further, both the Center for Auto Safety and Mr. Nowicki assert that a Mechanism should not select an auditor because doing so creates a conflict of interest. The Center for Auto Safety recommends that the Commission select an auditor for a fee, and determine whether the Mechanisms are fair and expeditious. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \96\ Center for Auto Safety at 1; Nowicki at 1. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- No changes are warranted because Rule 703 already imposes specific requirements concerning the impartiality of both the Mechanism and the auditor that the Mechanism selects. For example, Rule 703.3(b) requires the warrantors and sponsors of IDSMs to take all necessary steps to ensure that the Mechanism, and its members and staff, are sufficiently insulated from the warrantor and the sponsor, so that the members' and staff's decisions and performance are not influenced by either the warrantor or the sponsor.\97\ The Rule imposes minimum criteria in this regard: (1) Committing funds in advance; (2) basing personnel decisions solely on merit; and (3) not assigning conflicting warrantor or sponsor duties to the Mechanism.\98\ Additional safeguards for impartiality are set forth in Rule 703.4 governing qualification of members. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \97\ 16 CFR 703.3(b). \98\ Id. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- As to auditors' impartiality, although the Mechanism may select its own auditor, Rule 703.7(d) provides that ``[n]o auditor may be involved with the Mechanism as a warrantor, sponsor or member, or employee or agent thereof, other than for purposes of the audit.'' \99\ Further, IDSM audits have found ``no situation of conflict or circumstance which might give rise to an impression that [a conflict of interest] exists.'' \100\ Therefore, the Rule contains sufficient safeguards against partiality. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \99\ 16 CFR 703.7(d). \100\ See, e.g., Morrison and Company, 2013 Audit of BBB Auto Line, available at http://www.ftc.gov/sites/default/files/documents/reports_annual/2013-audit-better-business-bureau-auto-line-including-state-florida-and-state-ohio/2013bbbautoline.pdf, at 6. The audit further found that ``consumers are pleased with the impartiality and the quality of dispute resolution services . . . .'' Id. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- c. Modify the Information To Be Submitted to the Mechanism Rule 703.5(d) requires the Mechanism to render a decision ``at least within 40 days of notification of the dispute.'' \101\ The Center for Auto Safety asks the Commission to amend Section 703.5 to provide that the ``40 day deadline begins upon the consumer filing a substantially complete application regardless of whether the VIN is provided or not.'' \102\ The Center for Auto Safety claims that the Better Business Bureau is evading the 40-day deadline, because the BBB does not request Vehicle Identification Number (``VIN'') information on its consumer intake form but the BBB will only begin to consider the dispute after it receives the VIN number. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \101\ 16 CFR 703.5(d). \102\ Center for Auto Safety at 1. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Section 703.5 requires the Mechanism to ``investigate, gather and organize all information necessary for a fair and expeditious decision in each dispute.'' \103\ This provision ``implicitly permits Mechanisms to require consumers to provide the Mechanism with information `reasonably necessary' to decide the dispute.'' \104\ When adopting the final Rule in 1975, the Commission noted the Rule's ``intent is to avoid creating artificial or unnecessary procedural burdens so long as the basic goals of speed, fairness and independent participation are met.'' \105\ Therefore, because the Mechanism must have some flexibility in deciding the information necessary for it to make a determination, the Commission will retain Rule 703.5 unchanged. The Commission encourages, however, open dialogue between industry groups and the BBB to address any remaining concerns.\106\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \103\ 16 CFR 703.5(c). \104\ See Staff Advisory Opinion to Mr. Dean Determan, at 6, n6 (Aug. 28, 1985). \105\ 40 FR 60168, 60193 (Dec. 31, 1975). \106\ According to the BBB Autoline program, a claim is initiated only after a consumer provides the VIN and signs the application. A claim cannot be initiated online without this information. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- d. Mechanism's Decisions as Non-Binding The Commission received three comments concerning Rule 703.5(j)'s provision prohibiting binding arbitration provisions in warranty contracts.\107\ AHAM urges the Commission to delete this provision because ``it creates disincentives for manufacturers or sellers to create a Mechanism in the first instance and leads to wasted and duplicative efforts in cases between the consumers and manufacturers or sellers.'' \108\ NCLC and Mr. Johnson ask the Commission to retain Rule 703.5(j).\109\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \107\ See NCLC at 13-14; Johnson at 3; AHAM at 6. \108\ AHAM at 6-7. \109\ NCLC at 13-18; Johnson at 3. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- When the Commission first promulgated Rule 703.5(j) in 1975, it did so based on the MMWA's language, legislative history, and purpose: to ensure that consumer protections were in place in warranty disputes.\110\ The Commission explained that ``reference within the written warranty to any binding, non-judicial remedy is prohibited by the Rule and the Act.'' \111\ The Commission's underlying premise was that its authority over Mechanisms encompassed all nonjudicial dispute resolution procedures referenced within a written warranty, including arbitration. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \110\ 40 FR 60168, 60210 (Dec. 31, 1975). \111\ 40 FR 60168, 60211 (Dec. 31, 1975). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- During the 1996-97 rule review, some commenters asked the Commission to deviate from its position that Rule 703 [[Page 42719]] bans mandatory binding arbitration in warranties. The Commission, however, relying on its previous analysis and the MMWA's statutory language, reaffirmed its view that the MMWA and Rule 703 prohibit mandatory binding arbitration.\112\ As the Commission noted, Section 2310(a)(3) of the MMWA states that, if a warrantor incorporates an IDSM provision in its warranty, ``the consumer may not commence a civil action (other than a class action) . . . unless he initially resorts to such procedure.'' \113\ The Commission concluded ``Rule 703 will continue to prohibit warrantors from including binding arbitration clauses in their contracts with consumers that would require consumers to submit warranty disputes to binding arbitration.'' \114\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \112\ 64 FR 19700, 19708 (Apr. 22, 1999). \113\ Id. (quoting 15 U.S.C. 2310(a)(3)(C)(i)). \114\ 64 FR 19700, 19708 (Apr. 22, 1999). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Since the issuance of the 1999 FRN, courts have reached different conclusions as to whether the MMWA gives the Commission authority to ban mandatory binding arbitration in warranties.\115\ In particular, two appellate courts have questioned whether Congress intended binding arbitration to be considered a type of IDSM, which would potentially place binding arbitration outside the scope of the MMWA.\116\ Nonetheless, the Commission reaffirms its long-held view that the MMWA disfavors, and authorizes the Commission to prohibit, mandatory binding arbitration in warranties.\117\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \115\ See, e.g., Kolev v. Euromotors West/The Auto Gallery, 658 F.3d 1024 (9th Cir. 2011), withdrawn, 676 F.3d 867 (9th Cir. 2012) (withdrawn pending the issuance of a decision on a separate issue by the California Supreme Court in Sanchez v. Valencia Holding Co., S199119); Davis v. Southern Energy Homes, Inc., 305 F.3d 1268 (11th Cir. 2002); Walton v. Rose Mobile Homes, LLC, 298 F.3d 470 (5th Cir. 2002); see also Seney v. Rent-A-Center, Inc., 738 F.3d 631 (4th Cir. 2013). \116\ Davis v. Southern Energy Homes, Inc., 305 F.3d 1268 (11th Cir. 2002); Walton v. Rose Mobile Homes, LLC, 298 F.3d 470 (5th Cir. 2002). \117\ See 40 FR 60168, 60210 (Dec. 31, 1975) and 64 FR 19700, 19708 (Apr. 22, 1999). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- First, as the Commission observed during the 1999 rule review, the text of section 2310(a)(3)(C)(i) contemplates that consumers will ``initially resort'' to IDSMs before commencing a civil action. That language clearly presupposes that ``a mechanism's decision cannot be binding, because if it were, it would bar later court action.'' \118\ Similarly, section 2310(a)(3)(C) specifies that ``decisions'' in IDSMs shall be admissible in any subsequent ``civil action.'' \119\ As that language confirms, Congress intended that IDSMs resulting in a ``decision''--i.e., arbitration decisions rather than conciliation or mediation mechanisms--would precede and influence, but not foreclose, a subsequent judicial decision. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \118\ 64 FR 19700, 19708 (Apr. 22, 1999). \119\ 15 U.S.C. 2310(a)(3). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- As the Commission has previously noted, the legislative history provides additional evidence that Congress intended all IDSMs, including arbitration proceedings, to be nonbinding.\120\ The House committee report stated that ``[a]n adverse decision in any informal dispute settlement proceeding would not be a bar to a civil action on the warranty involved in the proceeding. . . .'' \121\ That language confirms what Congress strongly implies in the statutory text: arbitration should precede but not preclude a subsequent court action. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \120\ 64 FR 19700, 19708 (Apr. 22, 1999). \121\ Report to Accompany H.R. 7917, H.R. Rep. No. 93-1107, at 41 (1974) (report of the House Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce); see also S. Rep. No. 93-151, at 3 (1973) (report of the Senate Committee on Commerce) (``[I]f the consumer is not satisfied with the results obtained in any informal dispute settlement proceeding, the consumer can pursue his legal remedies in a court of competent jurisdiction. . . .''). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- The statutory scheme forecloses any argument that warranty-related arbitration proceedings fall outside the statutory category of ``informal dispute resolution mechanisms'' and thus outside the FTC's rulemaking authority. As many legislators, policymakers, and courts understood at the time of the MMWA's enactment, any arbitration proceeding is, by comparison to judicial proceedings, an ``informal'' ``mechanism'' for ``dispute settlement,'' and it thus falls squarely within the plain meaning of the term ``informal dispute settlement mechanism.'' \122\ Similarly, the MMWA's conference report indicates that ``arbiters''--i.e., the decisionmakers in any arbitration proceeding--are responsible for making determinations in IDSMs, and thus further confirms that arbitration is a form of IDSM.\123\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \122\ See, e.g., 119 Cong. Rec. 33,498 (1973) (statement of Sen. Magnuson); Consumer Protection: Hearings Before the Consumer Subcomm. of the S. Comm. on Commerce, S. Doc. No. 91-48, at 69 (1969) (statement of FTC Commissioner Elman); Alexander v. Gardner- Denver Co., 415 U.S. 36, 58 (1974). The Supreme Court has repeatedly confirmed that arbitration is a method of informal dispute resolution. See, e.g., AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion, 131 S. Ct. 1740, 1749 (2011) (``[T]he informality of arbitral proceedings is itself desirable, reducing the cost and increasing the speed of dispute resolution.''); Mitsubishi Motors v. Soler Chrysler- Plymouth, Inc., 473 U.S. 614, 628 (1985) (``By agreeing to arbitrate . . ., [a party] trades the procedures and opportunity for review of the courtroom for the simplicity, informality, and expedition of arbitration.''). \123\ Section 2304(b)(1) prohibits warrantors from imposing any additional duty on consumers unless the duty has been found reasonable in ``an administrative or judicial enforcement proceeding'' or ``an informal dispute settlement proceeding.'' 15 U.S.C. 2304(b)(1). The conference report indicates that the reasonableness of the additional duty is to be determined by ``the Commission, an arbiter, or a court.'' S. Rep. No. 93-1408, at 25, H.R. Rep. No. 93-1606, at 25 (1974) (Conf. Rep.) (emphasis added). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Just as important, any argument that an ``arbitration'' can somehow elude classification as an IDSM would subvert the purposes of the MMWA's IDSM provisions. To effectuate its declared policy of encouraging IDSMs that ``fairly and expeditiously'' settle consumer disputes, Congress: (1) Created incentives for warrantors to develop IDSMs and (2) directed the Commission to issue and enforce baseline rules for IDSMs.\124\ Congress would not have created this elaborate structure for warrantor incentives and agency supervision of warrantors who want to mandate use of certain contractual procedures in their warranties, while simultaneously permitting warrantors to evade that structure simply by using another contractual procedure and calling it something else (e.g., ``binding arbitration'') and thereby immunizing it from all agency oversight.\125\ Other courts have upheld binding arbitration in this context on the ground that the rationale of Rule 703 demonstrates an impermissible hostility toward arbitration in general and binding arbitration in particular.\126\ The Commission does not believe this is correct. Like the statutory text, the Commission's rules encourage arbitration proceedings when they comply with IDSM procedural safeguards and are not both mandatory and binding. Moreover, the Commission's rules permit ``post-dispute'' binding arbitration, where the parties agree--after a warranty dispute has arisen--to resolve their disagreement through arbitration.\127\ The Commission has also recognized that post-Mechanism binding arbitration is allowed.\128\ The Commission's prohibition is limited only to instances where binding arbitration is incorporated into the terms of a written warranty governed by the MMWA.\129\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \124\ 15 U.S.C. 2310(a)(1)-(4). \125\ 9 U.S.C. 1-16. \126\ See, e.g., Davis v. S. Energy Homes, Inc., 305 F.3d 1268 (11th Cir. 2002). \127\ See 40 FR 60168, 60211 (Dec. 31, 1975). \128\ Id. \129\ Id. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- AHAM also argues that eliminating the prohibition on binding arbitration would remove disincentives for warrantors to create a Mechanism and reduce judicial costs spent dealing with duplicative warranty cases. However, [[Page 42720]] Congress already considered the issues of warrantor incentives and availability of judicial remedies. To encourage warrantors to create Mechanisms, Section 2310(a)(3) allows warrantors to specify that use of a Mechanism is a prerequisite to filing a MMWA suit.\130\ The Commission believes that the current Rule appropriately implements the incentive structure that Congress established in the MMWA. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \130\ 15 U.S.C. 2310(a)(3). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- e. Change the Statistical Requirements Rule 703.6 requires the Mechanism to prepare indices and statistical compilations on a variety of issues, including warrantor performance, brands at issue, all disputes delayed beyond 40 days, and the number and percentage of disputes that were resolved, decided, or pending.\131\ The Commission requires the compilation of indices and statistics in part so any person can review a Mechanism's files. ``On the basis of the statistically reported performance, an interested person could determine to file a complaint with the Federal Trade Commission . . . and thereby cause the Commission to review the bona fide operation of the dispute resolution mechanism.'' \132\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \131\ See generally 16 CFR 703.6(b)-(e). \132\ 40 FR 60168, 60213 (Dec. 31, 1975). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Two commenters, the Center for Auto Safety and Mr. Nowicki, ask the Commission to repeal the Mechanism's record-keeping requirements contained in Rule 703.6.\133\ The Center for Auto Safety claims that most of the categories for statistical analysis ``are ambiguous, misleading or deceptive. Unfavorable consumer outcomes can be reported as favorable; untimely resolutions can be reported as timely.'' \134\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \133\ Center for Auto Safety at 1; Nowicki at 2. \134\ Center for Auto Safety at 1. Nowicki claims that empirical evidence suggests that the ``compliance self-proclamations'' may be false and warranties may be deceptive. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Similar comments were received during the previous rule review. Then, commenters urged the Commission to abolish Rule 703.6 because the categories of statistical compilation were ``either moot, nebulous, or even worse, misleading or deceptive.'' \135\ The Commission then stated that it appreciated that Rule 703.6(e)'s statistical compilations cannot provide an in-depth picture of the workings of the Mechanism. ``However, the statistics were not intended to serve that function. The statistical compilations attempt to provide a basis for minimal review by the interested parties to determine whether the IDSM program is working fairly and expeditiously. Based on that review, a more detailed investigation could then be prompted.'' \136\ In addition, the Commission was mindful of the costs associated with substantial record- keeping requirements, so as not to discourage the establishment of IDSMs. ``Therefore, the Commission sought to minimize the costs of the recordkeeping burden on the IDSM while ensuring that sufficient information was available to the public to provide a minimal review.'' \137\ The Commission has reviewed the issue and believes that its previous position continues to be correct. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \135\ See 64 FR 19700, 19710 (Apr. 22, 1999) (discussing Mr. Nowicki's comment). \136\ Id. \137\ Id. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- f. Audits and Recordkeeping Availability Rule 703.7 contains the audit requirements for the Mechanism. The Rule requires that an audit be performed annually evaluating: (1) Warrantors' efforts to make consumers aware of the Mechanism and (2) a random sample of disputes to determine the adequacy of the Mechanism's complaint intake-process and investigation and accuracy of the Mechanism's statistical compilations.\138\ Each audit should be submitted to the Commission and made available to the public at a reasonable cost. For the last several years, the Commission has published the audits on its Web site, making them available to the public free of charge. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \138\ 16 CFR 703.7. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- One commenter asks the Commission to change Rule 703.8 to ``mak[e] all IDSM documents available online, and requir[e] the Commission to review samples of disputes to determine whether the mechanism fairly and expeditiously resolves disputes.'' \139\ Another commenter recommends that the Commission repeal the audit requirements for the same reasons as the statistical compilation requirements.\140\ Similar to the Commission's reasoning in upholding the statistical compilation requirements, the Commission has decided to retain the audit requirements without change for two reasons. First, like the statistical compilation requirements, the audit function attempts to provide a general basis for interested parties to determine whether the IDSM program is working fairly and expeditiously. Second, the IDSM must make available the statistical summaries to interested parties upon request, and hold open meetings to hear and decide disputes.\141\ Given that Rule 703 already contemplates public access to Mechanism information, and that the Commission was mindful that substantial recordkeeping costs may discourage the establishment of IDSMs, the Commission will not impose at this time a mandatory electronic access requirement. Further, the Commission staff reviews the audits annually and confirms they are Rule 703 compliant. For these reasons, the Commission retains Rule 703.8 unchanged. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \139\ Nowicki at 2. \140\ Center for Auto Safety at 1. \141\ 16 CFR 703.8. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- 5. 16 CFR Part 239: Warranty Guides Several commenters ask the Commission to revise its Warranty Guides. First, three commenters \142\ ask the Commission to modify Sec. 239.2 to allow for the advertising of warranties online. The Commission's Guides are not specific to any medium, and already are applicable to all media. Second, commenters recommend that the Guides provide explicit, detailed guidance explaining how retailers and warrantors can comply with the MMWA. As stated previously, the .Com Disclosures and the Businessperson's Guide to Federal Warranty Law both provide additional guidance concerning online disclosure obligations. Therefore, part 239 will remain unchanged.\143\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \142\ AHAM at 3; National Automobile Dealers Association at 2; Steinborn at 3. \143\ AHAM and Steinborn ask the Commission to amend part 239 to recognize that ``referral of consumers to manufacturer Internet sites which make available warranty information satisfies the requirement to disclose the actual product warranty information prior to purchase by consumer.'' AHAM at 3; Steinborn at 3-4. Such reference is already contemplated for online retailers. Such reference, however, would be contrary to the requirements imposed for offline retailers, as discussed above. Second, AHAM recommends that the Guides be amended to require advertisers ``to clearly and conspicuously disclose what component/system is warranted and for what duration and if the balance of the product is not covered or covered for a different duration disclose that as well to prevent the consumer from believing that the terms of the warranty apply to the entire product.'' AHAM at 3-4. These requirements, however, are already encompassed in Rule 701.3(a)(2) and therefore not needed in the Guides. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- List of Subjects 16 CFR Part 700 Trade practices, Warranties. 16 CFR Part 701 Trade practices, Warranties. 16 CFR Part 703 Trade practices, Warranties. For the reasons set forth above, the Federal Trade Commission amends 16 CFR parts 700, 701, and 703 as follows: [[Page 42721]] PART 700--INTERPRETATIONS OF MAGNUSON-MOSS WARRANTY ACT 0 1. The authority citation for part 700 continues to read as follows: Authority: Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, Pub. L. 93-637, 15 U.S.C. 2301. 0 2. Amend Sec. 700.1 by revising the second and fifth sentences of paragraph (g) and the first sentence of paragraph (i) to read as follows: Sec. 700.1 Products covered. * * * * * (g) * * * Section 103, 15 U.S.C. 2303, applies to consumer products actually costing the consumer more than $10, excluding tax.* * * This interpretation applies in the same manner to the minimum dollar limits in section 102, 15 U.S.C. 2302, and rules promulgated under that section. * * * * * (i) The Act covers written warranties on consumer products ``distributed in commerce'' as that term is defined in section 101(13), 15 U.S.C. 2301(13). * * * 0 3. Amend Sec. 700.2 by revising the first sentence to read as follows: Sec. 700.2 Date of manufacture. Section 112 of the Act, 15 U.S.C. 2312, provides that the Act shall apply only to those consumer products manufactured after July 4, 1975.* * * 0 4. Amend Sec. 700.3 by revising the fourth and sixth sentences and footnote 1 of paragraph (a), the first sentence of paragraph (b), and the sixth sentence of paragraph (c) to read as follows: Sec. 700.3 Written warranty. (a) * * * Section 101(6), 15 U.S.C. 2301(6), provides that a written affirmation of fact or a written promise of a specified level of performance must relate to a specified period of time in order to be considered a ``written warranty.'' \1\ * * * In addition, section 111(d), 15 U.S.C. 2311(d), exempts from the Act (except section 102(c), 15 U.S.C. 2302(c)) any written warranty the making or content of which is required by federal law.* * * --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \1\ A ``written warranty'' is also created by a written affirmation of fact or a written promise that the product is defect free, or by a written undertaking of remedial action within the meaning of section 101(6)(B), 15 U.S.C. 2301(6)(B). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- (b) Certain terms, or conditions, of sale of a consumer product may not be ``written warranties'' as that term is defined in section 101(6), 15 U.S.C. 2301(6), and should not be offered or described in a manner that may deceive consumers as to their enforceability under the Act.* * * (c) * * * Such warranties are not subject to the Act, since a written warranty under section 101(6) of the Act, 15 U.S.C. 2301(6), must become ``part of the basis of the bargain between a supplier and a buyer for purposes other than resale.'' * * * 0 5. Amend Sec. 700.4 by revising the first sentence to read as follows: Sec. 700.4 Parties ``actually making'' a written warranty. Section 110(f) of the Act, 15 U.S.C. 2310(f), provides that only the supplier ``actually making'' a written warranty is liable for purposes of FTC and private enforcement of the Act.* * * 0 6. Amend Sec. 700.5 by revising paragraph (a) and the first and second sentences of paragraph (b) to read as follows: Sec. 700.5 Expressions of general policy. (a) Under section 103(b), 15 U.S.C. 2303(b), statements or representations of general policy concerning customer satisfaction which are not subject to any specific limitation need not be designated as full or limited warranties, and are exempt from the requirements of sections 102, 103, and 104 of the Act, 15 U.S.C. 2302-2304, and rules thereunder. However, such statements remain subject to the enforcement provisions of section 110 of the Act, 15 U.S.C. 2310, and to section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act, 15 U.S.C. 45. (b) The section 103(b), 15 U.S.C. 2303(b), exemption applies only to general policies, not to those which are limited to specific consumer products manufactured or sold by the supplier offering such a policy. In addition, to qualify for an exemption under section 103(b), 15 U.S.C. 2303(b), such policies may not be subject to any specific limitations.* * * 0 7. Amend Sec. 700.6 by revising the first sentence of paragraph (a) and the first, second, and fourth sentences of paragraph (b) to read as follows: Sec. 700.6 Designation of warranties. (a) Section 103 of the Act, 15 U.S.C. 2303, provides that written warranties on consumer products manufactured after July 4, 1975, and actually costing the consumer more than $10, excluding tax, must be designated either ``Full (statement of duration) Warranty'' or ``Limited Warranty''.* * * (b) Based on section 104(b)(4), 15 U.S.C. 2304(b)(4), the duties under subsection (a) of section 104, 15 U.S.C. 2304, extend from the warrantor to each person who is a consumer with respect to the consumer product. Section 101(3), 15 U.S.C. 2301(3), defines a consumer as a buyer (other than for purposes of resale) of any consumer product, any person to whom such product is transferred during the duration of an implied or written warranty (or service contract) applicable to the product.* * * However, where the duration of a full warranty is defined solely in terms of first purchaser ownership there can be no violation of section 104(b)(4), 15 U.S.C. 2304(b)(4), since the duration of the warranty expires, by definition, at the time of transfer.* * * 0 8. Amend Sec. 700.7 by revising the first sentence of paragraph (a) to read as follows: Sec. 700.7 Use of warranty registration cards. (a) Under section 104(b)(1) of the Act, 15 U.S.C. 2304(b)(1), a warrantor offering a full warranty may not impose on consumers any duty other than notification of a defect as a condition of securing remedy of the defect or malfunction, unless such additional duty can be demonstrated by the warrantor to be reasonable.* * * 0 9. Amend Sec. 700.8 by revising the third sentence to read as follows: Sec. 700.8 Warrantor's decision as final. * * * Such statements are deceptive since section 110(d) of the Act, 15 U.S.C. 2310(d), gives state and federal courts jurisdiction over suits for breach of warranty and service contract. 0 10. Amend Sec. 700.9 by revising the first and third sentences to read as follows: Sec. 700.9 Duty to install under a full warranty. Under section 104(a)(1) of the Act, 15 U.S.C. 2304(a)(1), the remedy under a full warranty must be provided to the consumer without charge.* * * However, this does not preclude the warrantor from imposing on the consumer a duty to remove, return, or reinstall where such duty can be demonstrated by the warrantor to meet the standard of reasonableness under section 104(b)(1), 15 U.S.C. 2304(b)(1). 0 11. Amend Sec. 700.10 by revising the section heading, paragraph (a), the first sentence in paragraph (b), and paragraph (c) to read as follows: Sec. 700.10 Prohibited tying. (a) Section 102(c), 15 U.S.C. 2302(c), prohibits tying arrangements that condition coverage under a written warranty on the consumer's use of an article or service identified by brand, trade, or corporate name unless that article or service is provided without charge to the consumer. (b) Under a limited warranty that provides only for replacement of [[Page 42722]] defective parts and no portion of labor charges, section 102(c), 15 U.S.C. 2302(c), prohibits a condition that the consumer use only service (labor) identified by the warrantor to install the replacement parts.* * * (c) No warrantor may condition the continued validity of a warranty on the use of only authorized repair service and/or authorized replacement parts for non-warranty service and maintenance (other than an article of service provided without charge under the warranty or unless the warrantor has obtained a waiver pursuant to section 102(c) of the Act, 15 U.S.C. 2302(c)). For example, provisions such as, ``This warranty is void if service is performed by anyone other than an authorized `ABC' dealer and all replacement parts must be genuine `ABC' parts,'' and the like, are prohibited where the service or parts are not covered by the warranty. These provisions violate the Act in two ways. First, they violate the section 102(c), 15 U.S.C. 2302(c), ban against tying arrangements. Second, such provisions are deceptive under section 110 of the Act, 15 U.S.C. 2310, because a warrantor cannot, as a matter of law, avoid liability under a written warranty where a defect is unrelated to the use by a consumer of ``unauthorized'' articles or service. In addition, warranty language that implies to a consumer acting reasonably in the circumstances that warranty coverage requires the consumer's purchase of an article or service identified by brand, trade or corporate name is similarly deceptive. For example, a provision in the warranty such as, ``use only an authorized `ABC' dealer'' or ``use only `ABC' replacement parts,'' is prohibited where the service or parts are not provided free of charge pursuant to the warranty. This does not preclude a warrantor from expressly excluding liability for defects or damage caused by ``unauthorized'' articles or service; nor does it preclude the warrantor from denying liability where the warrantor can demonstrate that the defect or damage was so caused. 0 12. Amend Sec. 700.11 by: 0 a. Revising the fourth and fifth sentences and adding a sixth sentence in paragraph (a); and 0 b. Revising the first sentence of paragraph (b) and the first and second sentences of paragraph (c). The revisions and addition read as follows: Sec. 700.11 Written warranty, service contract, and insurance distinguished for purposes of compliance under the Act. (a) * * * The McCarran-Ferguson Act, 15 U.S.C. 1011 et seq., provides that most federal laws (including the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act) shall not be construed to invalidate, impair, or supersede any law enacted by any State for the purpose of regulating the business of insurance. While three specific laws are subject to a separate proviso, the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act is not one of them. Thus, to the extent the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act's service contract provisions apply to the business of insurance, they are effective so long as they do not invalidate, impair, or supersede a State law enacted for the purpose of regulating the business of insurance. (b) ``Written warranty'' and ``service contract'' are defined in sections 101(6) and 101(8) of the Act, 15 U.S.C. 2301(6) and 15 U.S.C. 2301(8), respectively.* * * (c) A service contract under the Act must meet the definitions of section 101(8), 15 U.S.C. 2301(8). An agreement which would meet the definition of written warranty in section 101(6)(A) or (B), 15 U.S.C. 2301(6)(A) or (B), but for its failure to satisfy the basis of the bargain test is a service contract.* * * PART 701--DISCLOSURE OF WRITTEN CONSUMER PRODUCT WARRANTY TERMS AND CONDITIONS 0 13. The authority citation for part 701 continues to read as follows: Authority: 15 U.S.C. 2302 and 2309. 0 14. Amend Sec. 701.1 by revising paragraph (d) to read as follows: Sec. 701.1 Definitions. * * * * * (d) Implied warranty means an implied warranty arising under State law (as modified by sections 104(a) and 108 of the Act, 15 U.S.C. 2304(a) and 2308), in connection with the sale by a supplier of a consumer product. * * * * * 0 15. Amend Sec. 701.3 by revising paragraph (a)(7) to read as follows: Sec. 701.3 Written warranty terms. (a) * * * (7) Any limitations on the duration of implied warranties, disclosed on the face of the warranty as provided in section 108 of the Act, 15 U.S.C. 2308, accompanied by the following statement: Some States do not allow limitations on how long an implied warranty lasts, so the above limitation may not apply to you. * * * * * PART 703--INFORMAL DISPUTE SETTLEMENT PROCEDURES 0 16. The authority citation for part 703 continues to read as follows: Authority: 15 U.S.C. 2309 and 2310. 0 17. Amend Sec. 703.1 by revising paragraph (e) to read as follows: Sec. 703.1 Definitions. * * * * * (e) Mechanism means an informal dispute settlement procedure which is incorporated into the terms of a written warranty to which any provision of Title I of the Act applies, as provided in section 110 of the Act, 15 U.S.C. 2310. * * * * * 0 18. Amend Sec. 703.2 by revising the second sentence of paragraph (a) to read as follows: Sec. 703.2 Duties of warrantor. (a) * * * This paragraph (a) shall not prohibit a warrantor from incorporating into the terms of a written warranty the step-by-step procedure which the consumer should take in order to obtain performance of any obligation under the warranty as described in section 102(a)(7) of the Act, 15 U.S.C. 2302(a)(7), and required by part 701 of this subchapter. * * * * * 0 19. Amend Sec. 703.5 by revising paragraph (g)(2), the first sentence in paragraph (i), and the third sentence in paragraph (j) to read as follows: Sec. 703.5 Operation of the Mechanism. * * * * * (g) * * * (2) The Mechanism's decision is admissible in evidence as provided in section 110(a)(3) of the Act, 15 U.S.C. 2310(a)(3); and * * * * * (i) A requirement that a consumer resort to the Mechanism prior to commencement of an action under section 110(d) of the Act, 15 U.S.C. 2310(d), shall be satisfied 40 days after notification to the Mechanism of the dispute or when the Mechanism completes all of its duties under paragraph (d) of this section, whichever occurs sooner. * * * (j) * * * In any civil action arising out of a warranty obligation and relating to a matter considered by the Mechanism, any decision of the Mechanism shall be admissible in evidence, as provided in section 110(a)(3) of the Act, 15 U.S.C. 2310(a)(3). [[Page 42723]] By direction of the Commission, Commissioner Ohlhausen dissenting. Donald S. Clark, Secretary. Note: The following dissent will not appear in the Code of Federal Regulations. Dissenting Statement of Commissioner Maureen K. Ohlhausen I voted against the Commission's Final Revised Interpretations of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act (MMWA) Rule because it retains Rule 703.5(j)'s prohibition on pre-dispute mandatory binding arbitration.\1\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \1\ I do not object to the other final actions taken in this review. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Since the last Rule review in 1997, two federal appellate courts have held that the MMWA does not prohibit binding arbitration.\2\ Noting the federal policy favoring arbitration expressed in the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA),\3\ these courts concluded that the MMWA's statutory language and legislative history did not overcome the presumption in favor of arbitration and that the purposes of the MMWA and the FAA were not in inherent conflict. The courts also declined to give the Commission's contrary interpretation Chevron deference.\4\ Although some lower courts have reached a different conclusion, there is no circuit court precedent upholding the Commission's interpretation of the MMWA in Rule 703.5(j). Additionally, in several recent cases, the Supreme Court has indicated a strong preference for arbitration.\5\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \2\ See Walton v. Rose Mobile Homes, LLC, 298 F.3d 470 (5th Cir. 2002); Davis v. Southern Energy Homes, Inc., 305 F.3d 1268 (11th Cir. 2002). \3\ 9 U.S.C. 1. See Shearson/Am. Express Inc. v. McMahon, 482 U.S. 220 (1987) (noting that the presumption of the FAA is that arbitration is preferable and Congress must clearly override that presumption if it is to be disregarded). \4\ Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837 (1984) (holding that courts defer to an agency's interpretation of a statute if ``(1) Congress has not spoken directly to the issue; and (2) the agency's interpretation `is based on a permissible construction of the statute' ''). \5\ See, e.g,. Am. Express Co. v. Italian Colors Rest., 133 S. Ct. 2304 (2013), AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion, 131 S. Ct. 1740 (2011). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- The courts have sent a clear signal that the Commission's position that MMWA prohibits binding arbitration is no longer supportable.\6\ When faced with such a signal, the Commission should not reaffirm the rule in question. I therefore respectfully dissent. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \6\ See Davis, 305 F.3d at 1280 (``[T]he FTC's interpretation of the MMWA is unreasonable, and we decline to defer to the FTC regulations of the MMWA regarding binding arbitration in written warranties.''). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- [FR Doc. 2015-14065 Filed 7-17-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6750-01-P
![42710 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 138 / Monday, July 20, 2015 / Rules and Regulations
Environmental Review N., long. 90°07′47″ W. to lat. 29°59′31″ N., Issued in Washington, DC, on July 7, 2015.
long. 90°15′37″ W. to lat. 30°03′37″ N., long. Gary A. Norek,
The FAA has determined that this
90°22′10″ W. Manager, Airspace Policy and Regulations
action qualifies for categorical exclusion
Area B. That airspace extending upward Group.
under the National Environmental
from 600 feet MSL to and including 7,000 [FR Doc. 2015–17709 Filed 7–17–15; 8:45 am]
Policy Act in accordance with 311a,
feet MSL north of the south shore of Lake
FAA Order 1050.1E, ‘‘Environmental BILLING CODE 4910–13–P
Pontchartrain within a 7-mile radius of the
Impacts: Policies and Procedures.’’ This Louis Armstrong New Orleans International
airspace action is an editorial change Airport, excluding that airspace 0.5 mile
only and is not expected to cause any FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION
either side of a line extending from lat.
potentially significant environmental 30°01′10″ N., long. 90°07′47″ W. to lat.
impacts, and no extraordinary 16 CFR Parts 700, 701, and 703
29°59′31″ N., long. 90°15′37″ W. to lat.
circumstances exist that warrant 30°03′37″ N., long. 90°22′10″ W. RIN 3084–AB24; 3084–AB25; 3084–AB26
preparation of an environmental Area C. That airspace extending upward
assessment. from 1,000 feet MSL to and including 7,000
Final Action Concerning Review of
feet MSL within an area bounded by a line
Interpretations of Magnuson-Moss
List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71 Warranty Act; Rule Governing
beginning 7 miles southwest of the Louis
Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Armstrong New Orleans International Airport Disclosure of Written Consumer
Navigation (Air). on the north shore of the Mississippi River; Product Warranty Terms and
thence east along the Mississippi River north Conditions; Rule Governing Pre-Sale
Adoption of the Amendment
shore to a point 0.5 mile east of and parallel Availability of Written Warranty Terms;
In consideration of the foregoing, the Rule Governing Informal Dispute
to the St. Charles Airport runway 17/35
Federal Aviation Administration Settlement Procedures; and Guides for
extended centerline; thence southeast along a
amends 14 CFR part 71 as follows: the Advertising of Warranties and
line 0.5 miles east of and parallel to the St.
Charles Airport runway 17/35 extended Guarantees
PART 71—DESIGNATION OF CLASS A,
B, C, D, AND E AIRSPACE AREAS; AIR centerline to the Southern Pacific Railroad AGENCY: Federal Trade Commission.
TRAFFIC SERVICE ROUTES; AND track; thence southwest along the Southern ACTION: Final revised Interpretations;
REPORTING POINTS Pacific Railroad track to a point 4 miles Final clerical changes to Rules; and
southwest of the Louis Armstrong New Conclusion of review proceedings.
■ 1. The authority citation for part 71 Orleans International Airport; thence
continues to read as follows: counterclockwise along a 4-mile radius of the SUMMARY: The Federal Trade
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g); 40103,
Louis Armstrong New Orleans International Commission (‘‘the Commission’’) is
40113, 40120, E.O. 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, Airport to the north shore of the Mississippi announcing its final action in
1959–1963 Comp., p. 389. River; thence east along the north shore of connection with the review of a set of
the Mississippi River to the Harvey VORTAC warranty-related Rules and Guides: The
§ 71.1 [Amended] 300° radial; thence southeast along the Interpretations of the Magnuson-Moss
■ 2. The incorporation by reference in Harvey VORTAC 300° radial to a point 7 Warranty Act (‘‘Interpretations’’ or ‘‘part
14 CFR 71.1 of FAA Order 7400.9Y, miles southeast of the Louis Armstrong New 700’’); the Rule Governing Disclosure of
Airspace Designations and Reporting Orleans International Airport; thence Written Consumer Product Warranty
Points, dated August 6, 2014, and clockwise along the 7-mile radius of the Terms and Conditions (‘‘Rule 701’’); the
effective September 15, 2014, is Louis Armstrong New Orleans International Rule Governing Pre-Sale Availability of
amended as follows: Airport to the point of beginning. Written Warranty Terms (‘‘Rule 702’’);
Area D. That airspace extending upward the Rule Governing Informal Dispute
Paragraph 3000 Subpart B—Class B from 2,000 feet MSL to and including 7,000 Settlement Procedures (‘‘Rule 703’’);
Airspace. feet MSL within a 15-mile radius of the Louis and the Guides for the Advertising of
* * * * * Armstrong New Orleans International Warranties and Guarantees (‘‘the
Airport, excluding that airspace within Areas Guides’’ or ‘‘part 239’’). The
ASW LA B New Orleans, LA
A, B, and C previously described, that Interpretations represent the
Louis Armstrong New Orleans International airspace within Area F described hereinafter,
Airport (Primary Airport) Commission’s views on various aspects
that airspace within the Lakefront Airport
(Lat. 29°59′36″ N., long. 90°15′33″ W.) of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act
Class D airspace area, and that airspace
New Orleans Naval Air Station Joint Reserve (‘‘the Act’’ or ‘‘MMWA’’), and are
Base (Alvin Callender Field), LA within a 4.4-mile radius of New Orleans
intended to clarify the Act’s
(Lat. 29°49′38″ N., long. 90°01′36″ W.) Naval Air Station Joint Reserve Base (Alvin
requirements. Rule 701 specifies the
Ama, St. Charles Airport, LA (pvt) Callender Field).
Area E. That airspace extending upward
information that must appear in a
(Lat. 29°57′07″ N., long. 90°17′10″ W.)
New Orleans, Lakefront Airport, LA from 4,000 feet MSL to and including 7,000
written warranty on a consumer
(Lat. 30°02′33″ N., long. 90°01′42″ W.) feet MSL within a 20-mile radius of the Louis product. Rule 702 details the obligations
Harvey VORTAC Armstrong New Orleans International of sellers and warrantors to make
(Lat. 29°51′01″ N., long. 90°00′11″ W.) Airport, excluding that airspace within Areas warranty information available to
Boundaries. A, B, C, and D previously described, and that consumers prior to purchase. Rule 703
Area A. That airspace extending upward airspace within Area F described hereinafter. specifies the minimum standards
from the surface to and including 7,000 feet Area F. That airspace extending upward required for any informal dispute
MSL within a 7-mile radius of the Louis from the surface to 1,000 feet MSL and from settlement mechanism that is
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Armstrong New Orleans International Airport incorporated into a written consumer
2,000 feet MSL to 7,000 feet MSL 0.5 mile
and within a 1.5-mile radius of a point product warranty, and that the
located at lat. 30°01′31″ N., long. 90°24′00″ either side of a line extending from lat.
W., excluding that airspace north of the south 30°01′10″ N., long. 90°07′47″ W. to lat. consumer must use prior to pursuing
shore of Lake Pontchartrain, that airspace 29°59′31″ N., long. 90°15′37″ W. to lat. any legal remedies in court. The Guides
within and underlying Area C described 30°03′37″ N., long. 90°22′10″ W., excluding are intended to help advertisers avoid
hereinafter, and that airspace 0.5 mile either that airspace below 600 feet MSL north of the unfair or deceptive practices in the
side of a line extending from lat. 30°01′10″ south shore of Lake Pontchartrain. advertising of warranties or guarantees.
VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:02 Jul 17, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00004 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\20JYR1.SGM 20JYR1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/80_FR_42848/page/1.svg)
![Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 138 / Monday, July 20, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 42713
non-original parts or non-dealer services grounds for the claims. If the advertiser was caused by the use of unauthorized
are utilized.13 Commenters suggest that does not, the consumer is acting under articles or services.’’ 24 Commenters
these statements lead consumers to a false impression. The consumer might base their recommendation, in part, on
doubt the viability of non-original (or have perceived the advertising the language mandated by the Clean Air
recycled) parts.14 ‘‘Faced with such a differently had he or she known the Act for use in user manuals, namely,
choice a consumer is likely to use the advertiser had no basis for the claim.’’ 20 that ‘‘maintenance, replacement, or
‘required’ product in order to avoid the A warrantor claiming or suggesting that repair of the emissions control devices
risk that they may later face potentially a warranty is void simply because a and systems may be performed by any
expensive repairs that may not be consumer used ‘‘unauthorized’’ parts or automotive repair establishment or
covered under their warranty, resulting service would have no basis for such a individual using any automotive
in a ‘tie’ created via warranty.’’ 15 claim (absent a Commission waiver part.’’ 25
Accordingly, these commenters request pursuant to Section 2302(c) of the Act). The Commission declines to make
that the Commission ‘‘make clear that This is consistent with staff’s view, as this change. As an initial matter, the
warranty language that creates the expressed in recent opinion letters, that MMWA, unlike the Clean Air Act, does
impression that the use of a branded misinformation and misleading not require a mandatory disclaimer on
product or service is required in order statements in conjunction with warranty all warranties. Further, the current
to maintain warranty coverage is . . . coverage may be actionable.21 record lacks sufficient evidence to
impermissible.’’ 16 Therefore, to clarify the tying justify the imposition of a mandatory
The MMWA incorporates principles prohibition of the MMWA, § 700.10(c) warranty disclosure requirement for a
under Section 5 of the FTC Act that will be changed as described in subset of warrantors.26
prohibit warrantors from disseminating amendatory instruction 11. c. Clarify That Use of an Aftermarket or
deceptive statements concerning
b. Require a Mandatory Disclosure Recycled Component is Not a Prima
warranty coverage. The MMWA gives
Statement in Companies’ Warranties Facie Justification for Warranty Denial
the Commission the authority to restrain
a warrantor from making a deceptive Several commenters 22 ask the One commenter 27 asks the
warranty, which is defined as a Commission to mandate that warrantors Commission to clarify that the use of
warranty that ‘‘fails to contain providing a warranty to a consumer in aftermarket components is not a prima
information which is necessary in light connection with a motor vehicle facie justification for warranty denial.
of all of the circumstances, to make the incorporate standard language in their The Interpretations and related
warranty not misleading to a reasonable warranties, akin to the FTC’s Consumer educational materials already make
individual exercising due care.’’ 17 Alert on Auto Warranties.23 These clear that the mere use of an aftermarket
Thus, a warrantor would violate the commenters state that, although the (or recycled) component alone is not a
MMWA if its warranty led a reasonable FTC’s Consumer Alert on Auto sufficient justification for warranty
consumer exercising due care to believe Warranties informs consumers of their denial. As discussed above, a warrantor
that the warranty conditioned coverage rights under the MMWA, consumers cannot disclaim warranty coverage if a
‘‘on the consumer’s use of an article or should receive information about these defect or damage is unrelated to the
service identified by brand, trade or rights in an owner’s manual or warranty consumer’s use of ‘‘unauthorized’’
corporate name unless that article or document pursuant to a Commission- products or service, unless the
service is provided without charge to mandated disclosure. These warrantor provides the service or part
the consumer.’’ 18 commenters ask the Commission to without charge under the warranty or
Moreover, misstatements leading a amend its Interpretations so that these receives a Commission waiver.28 A
consumer to believe that the consumer’s warrantors would be required to provide warrantor can refuse coverage where the
warranty is void because a consumer in boldface type on the first page of a warrantor can demonstrate that the
used ‘‘unauthorized’’ parts or service written automobile warranty: ‘‘Warranty defect or damage was caused by the use
may also be deceptive under Section 5 coverage cannot be denied unless the of the ‘‘unauthorized’’ part or service.29
of the FTC Act.19 Specifically, claims by Several commenters ask the
warrantor or service provide[r] [sic] can
a warrantor that create a false Commission to better educate
demonstrate that the defect or damage
impression that a warranty would be consumers on how to identify and
void due to the use of ‘‘unauthorized’’ 20 FTC Policy Statement on Deception, supra note
report warranty tying in the
parts or service may constitute a 19 at n14; see also 15 U.S.C. 2310(c)(2). marketplace. In July 2011, the staff
deceptive practice as outlined in the 21 Consumer Alert on Auto Warranties, supra
24 USAP Coalition at 14. Elsewhere, however, the
FTC Policy Statement on Deception: note 3.
22 Ashland at 3; Automotive Oil Change commenters propose other specific language for the
‘‘The deception theory is based on the Commission to add to its Interpretations that would
Association at 2; Certified Automotive Parts
fact that most ads making objective Association at 2–3; International Imaging not be limited to mandatory disclosures in warranty
claims imply, and many expressly state, Technology Council at 6–7; LKQ Corporation at 10; documents but would extend to owner’s manuals
that an advertiser has certain specific Monro Muffler Brake at 1–2; USAP Coalition at and other communications with prospective
14–15. consumers. USAP Coalition at 20, Att. B;
23 The Consumer Alert on Auto Warranties Automotive Oil Change Association at 6 (referring
13 Hunton & Williams at 4. to ‘‘warranty documents and related
14 Automotive Recyclers Association at 2. informs consumers, among other things, that unless
communications.’’).
15 Id.
they have been provided parts or services without 25 USAP Coalition at 14, citing 42 U.S.C.
charge under the warranty, they do not have to use
16 USAP Coalition at 3. the dealer for repairs and maintenance to keep their 7541(c)(3)(A).
17 15 U.S.C. 2310(c). 26 The Specialty Equipment Market Association
warranty in effect, stating, ‘‘An independent
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES
18 16 CFR 700.10.
mechanic, a retail chain shop, or even you yourself (‘‘SEMA’’) asks the Commission to prepare a
19 15 U.S.C. 45(a). See generally Letter from James can do routine maintenance and repairs on your supplemental consumer alert to specifically
C. Miller III, Chairman, Fed. Trade Comm’n, et al., vehicle. In fact, the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, reference ‘‘specialty parts.’’ SEMA at 2. A
to Rep. John D. Dingell (Oct. 14, 1983), reprinted which is enforced by the FTC, makes it illegal for supplemental consumer alert is not necessary as the
in Cliffdale Assocs., Inc., 103 F.T.C. 110, 174 manufacturers or dealers to claim that your existing consumer alert applies to all non-original
(1984), available at https://www.ftc.gov/public- warranty is void or to deny coverage under your (or recycled) parts.
27 Ashland at 2.
statements/1983/10/ftc-policy-statement-deception warranty simply because someone other than the
28 16 CFR 700.10(c).
(hereinafter ‘‘FTC Policy Statement on Deception’’) dealer did the work.’’ Consumer Alert on Auto
at 2. Warranties, supra note 3. 29 Id.
VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:02 Jul 17, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\20JYR1.SGM 20JYR1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/80_FR_42848/page/4.svg)
![42714 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 138 / Monday, July 20, 2015 / Rules and Regulations
issued a consumer alert highlighting caused defects or damage to the perform under the service contract.40
MMWA’s tying prohibitions. The alert consumer’s vehicle by, for example, The Commission declines to add the
explained: ‘‘Simply using an aftermarket giving consumers a copy of a service requested interpretation.
or recycled part does not void your bulletin or just ‘‘say[ing] so.’’ 35 Existing staff guidance provides that
warranty. The Magnuson-Moss Commenters therefore ask the ‘‘sellers of consumer products that
Warranty Act makes it illegal for Commission to require, in its merely sell service contracts as agents of
companies to void your warranty or Interpretations, that warrantors provide service contract companies and do not
deny coverage under the warranty consumers with a written statement to themselves extend written warranties’’
simply because you used an aftermarket support any warranty denial claim. do not ‘‘enter into’’ service contracts.41
or recycled part.’’ 30 The Commission does not believe a This guidance parallels the MMWA’s
change is warranted because the current provisions concerning a seller’s liability
d. Require That Warrantors Have record lacks sufficient evidence
Substantiation for Their Performance under the MMWA for merely selling a
showing that warrantors routinely deny third party’s warranty: ‘‘only the
Claims Regarding Non-Original Parts warranty coverage orally without warrantor actually making a written
Several commenters 31 ask the demonstrating to the consumer that the affirmation of fact, promise, or
Commission to require that warrantors ‘‘unauthorized’’ part or service caused undertaking shall be deemed to have
have substantiation for their claims that damage to the vehicle. At this time, the created a written warranty, and any
original equipment manufacturer Commission believes the existing rights arising thereunder may be
(‘‘OEM’’) parts work better than non- Interpretations adequately address this enforced under this section only against
original or recycled parts. This specific issue. such warrantor and no other person.’’ 42
request is outside the purview of the Act Simply providing a consumer with a In keeping with the MMWA, the
and relates generally to the requirement copy of a service bulletin or denying Commission’s Interpretations
under Section 5 of the FTC Act that coverage with a bald, unsupported concerning parties ‘‘actually making’’ a
companies have sufficient basis for their statement that the ‘‘unauthorized’’ parts written warranty provide that a supplier
claims. Section 5 requires warrantors or service caused the vehicle damage who simply distributes or sells a
making performance claims regarding would be insufficient under the consumer product warranted by another
non-original or recycled parts to have a Commission’s existing Interpretations. person or business is not liable for
reasonable basis for those claims, Warrantors must have a basis for failure of the written warranty to
thereby ensuring that such claims are warranty denials by demonstrating to comply with the Act.43 Accordingly, the
not unfair, deceptive, false, or consumers that the use of Commission will not add the requested
misleading. Similarly, advertisers must ‘‘unauthorized’’ parts or service caused interpretation concerning service
have adequate substantiation—or a the defect or damage to the vehicle. contracts.
reasonable basis—for any advertising Further, denying warranty coverage by The second commenter, the Center for
claims they make before the claims are simply pointing to a service bulletin Auto Safety, seeks clarity to address the
disseminated. Under the substantiation that informs consumers that only discrepancy it perceives between the
doctrine, ‘‘firms lacking a reasonable ‘‘authorized’’ parts or service should be MMWA and the staff’s guidance
basis before an ad is disseminated used to maintain warranty coverage may concerning the circumstances under
violate Section 5 of the FTC Act.’’ 32 also violate the MMWA’s proscriptions which an auto dealer (i.e., supplier) can
against tying.36 Therefore, whether the disclaim implied warranties when
e. Require Warranty Denial To Be in
demonstration is in writing or oral, a offering service contracts. It argues that,
Writing
warrantor denying warranty coverage on one hand, Section 2308(a)(2) of the
The Commission’s Interpretations due to the use of ‘‘unauthorized’’ parts
state that a warrantor is not precluded MMWA states: ‘‘no supplier may
or service must show that such use disclaim or modify . . . any implied
from denying warranty coverage for caused the defect or damage to the
defects or damage caused by the use of warranty to a consumer with respect to
vehicle. such consumer product if . . . at the
‘‘unauthorized’’ parts or service if the
warrantor ‘‘demonstrates’’ that the f. The Scope of Auto Dealers’ time of sale, or within 90 days
‘‘unauthorized’’ parts or service caused Responsibilities Under the MMWA and thereafter, such supplier enters into a
a defect or damage to the vehicle.33 Interpretations service contract with the consumer
Commenters 34 state that, in some Two commenters 37 address the scope which applies to such consumer
instances, warrantors have denied of auto dealers’ (which fall under product.’’ 44 On the other hand, the
warranty coverage without sufficiently MMWA’s definition of ‘‘supplier’’ 38) FTC’s Businessperson’s Guide to
demonstrating to consumers that the use responsibilities under the MMWA and Federal Warranty Law states: ‘‘[s]ellers
of ‘‘unauthorized’’ parts or service Interpretations.39 First, the National of consumer products who make service
Consumer Law Center (‘‘NCLC’’) asks contracts on their products are
30 See Consumer Alert on Auto Warranties, supra
the Commission to add an interpretation 40 NCLC
note 3. As stated in the updated consumer alert, the at 10.
manufacturer or dealer can, however, require
stating that a supplier enters into a 41 See FTC, The Businessperson’s Guide to
consumers to use select parts if those parts are service contract with a consumer Federal Warranty Law, available at http://
provided to consumers free of charge under the whenever the supplier offers a service www.business.ftc.gov/documents/bus01-
warranty. contract to the consumer, irrespective of businesspersons-guide-federal-warranty-law; 15
31 Ashland at 6–7; LKQ Corporation at 8; USAP U.S.C. 2308(a)(2).
whether the supplier is obligated to
Coalition at 15–16. 42 15 U.S.C. 2310(f).
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES
32 FTC Policy Statement Regarding Advertising 43 16 CFR 700.4. Section 700.4 further provides,
35 Certified
Auto Parts Association at 5.
Substantiation, appended to Thompson Med. Co., however, that other actions and written and oral
36 16
CFR 700.10(c).
104 F.T.C. 648, 839 (1984), aff’d, 791 F.2d 189 (D.C. representations of such a supplier in connection
Cir. 1986). 37 Center for Auto Safety at 2; NCLC at 10.
with the offer or sale of a warranted product may
33 16 CFR 700.10(c). 38 The MMWA defines ‘‘supplier’’ as ‘‘any person obligate that supplier under the Act. If under State
34 Ashland at 3; Automotive Oil Change engaged in the business of making a consumer law the supplier is deemed to have ‘‘adopted’’ the
Association at 6–7; BP Lubricants at 3, Certified product directly or indirectly available to written affirmation of fact, promise, or undertaking,
Auto Parts Association at 4–5; SEMA at 3; USAP consumers.’’ 15 U.S.C. 2301(4). the supplier is also obligated under the Act.
Coalition at 15–16. 39 Center for Auto Safety at 2. 44 15 U.S.C. 2308(a)(2).
VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:02 Jul 17, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\20JYR1.SGM 20JYR1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/80_FR_42848/page/5.svg)
![42716 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 138 / Monday, July 20, 2015 / Rules and Regulations
i. The Commission’s Interpretation The Commission agrees that the The Commission received six comments
Under § 700.11(a) Conflicts With the McCarran-Ferguson Act’s ‘‘invalidate, on this issue: four commenters urge the
McCarran-Ferguson Act and Supreme impair, or supersede’’ standard is Commission not to add specific service-
Court Precedent applicable to the MMWA. The contract disclosure requirements, while
Commission will revise the two commenters take the opposite
NCLC asserts that the Commission has Interpretation as described in view.74 The four opponents of
incorrectly interpreted the meaning of amendatory instruction 12. disclosure rules for service contracts
the McCarran-Ferguson Act in state that service contracts are different
§ 700.11(a).64 The McCarran-Ferguson j. Amend Definition of ‘‘Consumer
from warranties in that they do not form
Act provides that ‘‘[n]o Act of Congress Product’’
the basis of the bargain. They argue that
shall be construed to invalidate, impair, SEMA asks the Commission to amend no federal regulation is needed because
or supersede any law enacted by any the definition of ‘‘consumer product’’ to states already regulate service contracts
State for the purpose of regulating the include specialty equipment.71 The and adding federal regulation to the mix
business of insurance, or which imposes Commission has determined that no would create unnecessary burdens to
a fee or tax upon such business, unless definitional change is warranted both the industry and to federal and
such Act specifically relates to the because specialty equipment is already state governments.75
business of insurance: Provided, That covered by the definition of ‘‘consumer On the other hand, two commenters,
. . . the Sherman Act, . . . the Clayton product.’’ ‘‘Consumer product’’ is Mr. Evan Johnson and NCLC, argue that
Act, and . . . the Federal Trade defined as ‘‘any tangible personal the Commission should amend the
Commission Act . . . shall be property which is distributed in Rules to prescribe the manner and form
applicable to the business of insurance commerce and which is normally used in which service-contract terms are
to the extent that such business is not for personal, family, or household disclosed. Mr. Johnson argues that
regulated by State Law.’’ 65 Section purposes.’’ 72 service contracts have been a ‘‘huge
700.11 states that agreements regulated source’’ of consumer complaints. ‘‘Many
2. 16 CFR Part 701: Disclosure of Terms
by state law as insurance are subject to of these complaints concern marketing
and Conditions (Rule 701)
the MMWA ‘‘only to the extent they are but many also arise from the unclear
not regulated in a particular state as the a. Regulate Service Contract Disclosures wording and structure of the
business of insurance.’’ 66 The request for public comment contracts.’’ 76 NCLC provides two
NCLC states that the Interpretation is specifically asked whether the reasons why the Commission should
inconsistent with both the McCarran- Commission should amend the Rules to specifically regulate service contracts.
Ferguson Act and Supreme Court cover service-contract disclosures.73 First, the reasons for mandatory
precedent.67 First, NCLC argues that disclosure requirements for warranties
because the MMWA is not one of the 71 SEMA at 2. Specialty equipment includes apply equally to service contracts;
three enumerated statutes (the Sherman performance, functional, restoration and styling- regulating one and not the other makes
Act, Clayton Act or the FTC Act), the enhancement products for use on passenger cars little sense.77 Second, service contracts
and light-duty trucks. Id. at 1.
correct standard is the standard 72 16 CFR 701.1(b).
applicable to all other federal statutes. 73 The Association of Home Appliance or re-fillers of consumables, such as ink and toner,
In other words, the MMWA can regulate must include a marking prominently displayed on
Manufacturers (‘‘AHAM’’) asks for additional
the consumable that clearly directs the end user to
the business of insurance so long as it changes to Rule 701. First, AHAM asks the
contact the party that remanufactured the
does not ‘‘invalidate, impair, or Commission to amend Rule 701.3 by adding that
consumable (or its designee) for all warranty claims
any warrantor complying with the Rule is entitled
supersede’’ state law. Therefore, even if to a presumption in any breach of warranty
and information. Steinborn at 2. However, Rule 701
a state regulates a service agreement as already requires that warranty terms include a step-
litigation that the warranty is not unconscionable,
by-step explanation of the procedure which the
the business of insurance, the MMWA deceptive, or misleading. AHAM at 2. It argues that
consumer should follow in order to obtain
may still apply.68 Second, NCLC asserts consumers file hundreds of class actions each year
performance of any warranty obligation. 16 CFR
asking courts to invalidate or modify the terms of
the Commission’s Interpretation is a written warranty. Id. Although Rule 701.3 sets out
701.3(a)(5). For this reason, the Commission has
contrary to Supreme Court precedent, chosen not to incorporate the specific change
minimum federal disclosure requirements for
advocated by Mr. Steinborn.
Humana v. Forsyth, 525 U.S. 299 (1999). consumer product warranties, warrantors must also 74 Opponents of federal service-contract
There, the Supreme Court held that follow the proscriptions of Section 5 of the FTC
Act, prohibiting unfair and deceptive practices, and disclosure regulations are the AHAM, Florida
states’ regulation of insurance fraud various applicable state laws. Because there are Service Agreement Association, Service Contract
would not displace remedies under other laws governing unfairness or deception in Industry Council, and Property Casualty Insurers
Association of America. Mr. Johnson and NCLC
federal law for the same misconduct warranties, the Commission does not believe it
support the Commission’s promulgation of service-
because they do not ‘‘impair the would be appropriate to create a new provision in
the Warranty Rules specifying that warrantors contract disclosure regulations.
insurance regulatory scheme.’’ 69 complying with Rule 701.3 are entitled to a
75 See Florida Service Agreement Association at
Consequently, NCLC states, ‘‘even presumption that their warranties are not 2–3; Service Contract Industry Council at 2–3. For
though state insurance law provides a unconscionable, deceptive, or misleading. Second, example, the Service Contract Industry Council
AHAM asks the Commission to amend Rule 701.3 states that thirty-five states specifically regulate
remedial scheme for breach of a service service contracts on consumer goods, thirty-five
by adding that a warrantor can exclude any latent
contract regulated as insurance, the defects that may manifest after the written warranty states regulate service contracts on homes, and
additional availability of Magnuson- period expires. Id. at 3. AHAM asserts that many thirty-eight states regulate service contracts on
Moss remedies for the same misconduct lawsuits seek to expand or modify the express motor vehicles. Commenters assert that many of
warranty’s terms after sale, and beyond the these state laws provide greater protection to
does not ‘impair’ the insurance consumers than the MMWA by, for example,
contractually-limited time period, to cover an
regulatory scheme.’’ 70 alleged latent defect that manifests itself post- ‘‘ensuring that service contract obligors are
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES
warranty period. However, Rule 701.3 focuses on financially sound and that their obligations to
64 NCLC disclosure requirements for consumer product consumers are secure.’’ Because the MMWA
at 9.
65 15 warranties. It requires the disclosure of several preempts state warranty law unless the state law
U.S.C. 1012(b). ‘‘affords protection to consumers greater than the
66 16 CFR 700.11(a). items of material information in a clear and
conspicuous manner. Rule 701.3 does not mandate requirement of Magnuson-Moss,’’ these commenters
67 NCLC at 8–9.
specific warranty coverage. Nor does the Rule itself argue that additional federal regulations may have
68 Id. at 8. little practical effect.
cover post-warranty conduct. Therefore, no change
69 Id. at 9. 76 Johnson at 4.
is warranted. Mr. Steinborn asks the Commission to
70 Id. modify Rule 701 so that third-party manufacturers 77 NCLC at 12.
VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:02 Jul 17, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\20JYR1.SGM 20JYR1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/80_FR_42848/page/7.svg)
![Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 138 / Monday, July 20, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 42717
are widely sold and expensive, and One commenter noted at the outset that The Commission however, does not
consumers have little information Rule 702 ‘‘continues to be very agree with the view endorsed by
concerning costs, coverage, and claims important to consumers. Consumers are commenters 88 that offline sellers can
process.78 very aware of warranties and use comply with the pre-sale availability
The Commission does not believe warranty differences as a basis for rule by advising buyers of the
such a rule amendment is needed choosing a product. The current rule is availability of warranties on the
because the MMWA and Section 5 a reasonable and cost-effective approach warrantor’s Web site. The intent of the
already require that warrantors, to providing the information.’’ 83 Rule is to make warranty information
suppliers, and service contract Three commenters ask the available at the point of sale. For brick
providers clearly and conspicuously Commission to specifically reference and mortar transactions, the point of
disclose service contract terms and Internet sales in Rule 702 and provide sale is in the store; for online
conditions. Section 2306(b) of the Act additional guidance on how retailers transactions, the point of sale is where
provides: ‘‘[n]othing in this chapter can comply with the Rule by referring consumers purchase the product online.
shall be construed to prevent a supplier consumers to warrantors’ Web sites.84 The Commission agrees with the
or warrantor from entering into a service Although Rule 702 does not explicitly commenter who notes: ‘‘Internet
contract with the consumer in addition mention online commerce, it applies to availability, however, is not a substitute
to or in lieu of a written warranty if the sale of warranted consumer for availability as specified in Rule 702
such contract fully, clearly, and products online. Staff recently updated because many consumers make little or
conspicuously discloses its terms and the .Com Disclosures to provide no use of the internet, while those who
conditions in simple and readily additional guidance on disclosure do still need the information at the
understood language.’’ 79 In addition, obligations in the online context. As point of sale as a fallback for when they
Section 5 prohibits service contract stated in the updated .Com Disclosures, haven’t obtained the information online
providers from failing to clearly and warranties communicated through or when they want to verify that their
conspicuously disclose material terms visual text online are no different than online information is accurate.’’ 89
and conditions or otherwise deceiving paper versions and the same rules In sum, because Rule 702 already
consumers with respect to the scope and apply.85 Online sellers of consumer covers the sale of consumer products
nature of service contracts. This is in products can easily comply with the online, and because staff has updated its
accord with the Businessperson’s pre-sale availability rule in a number of .Com Guidance concerning compliance
Guidance to the MMWA: ‘‘If you offer ways. Online sellers can, for example, with pre-sale obligations online, the
a service contract, the Act requires you use ‘‘a clearly-labeled hyperlink, in Commission has chosen not to engage in
to list conspicuously all terms and close conjunction to the description of additional rulemaking as to Rule 702 at
conditions in simple and readily the warranted product, such as ‘get this time.
understood language.’’ 80 The warranty information here’ to lead to the
Commission has issued a number of full text of the warranty.’’ 86 4. Rule 703—Informal Dispute
consumer education pieces on service As with other online disclosures, Settlement Procedures
contracts and extended warranties and warranty information should be The Commission’s request for public
will take action where warranted.81 displayed clearly and conspicuously. comment specifically asked whether it
Therefore, for example, warranty terms should change Rule 703, and if so, how.
3. 16 CFR Part 702: Pre-Sale Availability
buried within voluminous ‘‘terms and Six commenters submitted responses to
Rule (Rule 702)
conditions’’ do not satisfy the Rule’s this question.90 At the outset,
Generally, under Rule 702, sellers requirement that warranty terms be in commenters highlighted the importance
who offer written warranties on close proximity to the warranted of the Rule in serving as a standard for
consumer products must include certain product. Further, general references to IDSMs in general, and more specifically,
information in their warranties and warranty coverage, such as ‘‘one year in providing a benchmark for state
make them available for review at the warranty applies,’’ are also not lemon law IDSMs and certification
point of purchase. The Commission’s sufficient.87 programs for IDSMs. Many states’
request for public comment asked criteria focus on the IDSM’s compliance
whether the Commission should amend the Rule to permit private actions for violations of with Rule 703’s provisions. Therefore,
Rule 702 to specifically address making Rule 702. However, the MMWA already provides a
commenters stressed that any repeal or
warranty documents accessible online. private cause of action to any consumer ‘‘who is
damaged by the failure of a supplier, warrantor, or change to Rule 703 will also affect state
The Commission received seven service contractor to comply with any obligation’’ lemon law and certification programs.91
comments on this specific question.82 under the MMWA. 15 U.S.C. 2310(d)(1). Notwithstanding this fact, some
83 Johnson at 2.
78 Id. 84 AHAM at 3; National Independent Automobile
commenters ask the Commission to
79 15 U.S.C. 2306(b). Dealers Association at 2; Steinborn at 2–3. The
change certain elements of the Rule,
80 The Businessperson’s Guide to Federal Center for Auto Safety recommends that Rule 702.3
Warranty Law, supra note 41. point of sale requirements be maintained and to inform them of their obligations. http://
81 See, e.g., FTC, Auto Service Contracts and enforced, requiring hard copy warranty materials to www.ftc.gov/opa/2013/12/warningletters.shtm
Warranties, http://www.consumer.ftc.gov/articles/ be available at physical retail locations, not on CD 88 AHAM at 4–5; see also Steinborn at 2 (‘‘Where
0054-auto-service-contracts-and-warranties; see or DVD. Staff’s guidance allows warranties to be manufacturers and resellers have Internet
also FTC v. Voicetouch, Civ. No. 09CV2929 (N.D. available on CDs and DVDs, but does not allow presences, click-through access to and/or a
Ill., filed May 13, 2009) (action involving deceptive sellers to meet their pre-sale obligations by referring conspicuous reference to the manufacturers’ Web
telemarketing of extended auto warranties); FTC v. consumers to CDs or DVDs that are not readily site containing the applicable warranty should be
accessible at the point of sale. See Letter from recognized as sufficient means for sellers to meet
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Transcontinental Warranty, Inc., Civ. No.
09CV2927 (N.D. Ill., filed May 13, 2009) (same). The Allyson Himelfarb to Thomas M. Hughes (Feb. 17, the requirements of 702.’’).
Commission will continue to examine service 2009), available at http://www.ftc.gov/bcp/ 89 Johnson at 2.
contract disclosures. warranties/opinion0901.pdf. 90 AHAM at 6; Center for Auto Safety at 1;
85 See .com Disclosures, supra note 4, at 3, n7.
82 AHAM at 3; Center for Auto Safety at 2; Johnson at 3; International Association of Lemon
86 Id. Law Administrators at 1; NCLC at 14–15; Nowicki
Eisenberg at 1; Johnson at 2–3; National Automobile
Dealers Association at 2; National Independent 87 FTC Staff has found several instances in which at 1–2.
Automobile Dealers Association at 2; Steinborn at online sellers have not fully complied with the pre- 91 See International Association of Lemon Law
2–3. Ms. Eisenberg asks the Commission to amend sale availability rule and has contacted these sellers Administrators at 1.
VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:02 Jul 17, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\20JYR1.SGM 20JYR1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/80_FR_42848/page/8.svg)
![42718 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 138 / Monday, July 20, 2015 / Rules and Regulations
including the Mechanism’s procedure, the auditor that the Mechanism selects. dispute.’’ 103 This provision ‘‘implicitly
record-keeping, and audit requirements, For example, Rule 703.3(b) requires the permits Mechanisms to require
and also reassess the Commission’s warrantors and sponsors of IDSMs to consumers to provide the Mechanism
position on binding arbitration clauses take all necessary steps to ensure that with information ‘reasonably necessary’
in warranty contracts. These comments the Mechanism, and its members and to decide the dispute.’’ 104 When
are discussed below. Overall, the staff, are sufficiently insulated from the adopting the final Rule in 1975, the
Commission leaves Rule 703 warrantor and the sponsor, so that the Commission noted the Rule’s ‘‘intent is
unchanged. members’ and staff’s decisions and to avoid creating artificial or
performance are not influenced by unnecessary procedural burdens so long
a. Modify the IDSM Procedures either the warrantor or the sponsor.97 as the basic goals of speed, fairness and
AHAM claims that the procedures The Rule imposes minimum criteria in independent participation are met.’’ 105
prescribed in Rule 703 are difficult to this regard: (1) Committing funds in Therefore, because the Mechanism must
follow and implement.92 It urges the advance; (2) basing personnel decisions have some flexibility in deciding the
Commission to simplify the procedures solely on merit; and (3) not assigning information necessary for it to make a
so they would be ‘‘more easily and conflicting warrantor or sponsor duties determination, the Commission will
widely implemented by warrantors.’’ 93 to the Mechanism.98 Additional retain Rule 703.5 unchanged. The
It further asserts that ‘‘a change would safeguards for impartiality are set forth Commission encourages, however, open
benefit consumers, businesses, and in Rule 703.4 governing qualification of dialogue between industry groups and
courts by streamlining the dispute members. the BBB to address any remaining
resolution procedure and, thereby, As to auditors’ impartiality, although concerns.106
reducing the burden on state and federal the Mechanism may select its own
auditor, Rule 703.7(d) provides that d. Mechanism’s Decisions as Non-
courts of adjudicating some warranty Binding
disputes, as many more could be ‘‘[n]o auditor may be involved with the
handled through informal, but Mechanism as a warrantor, sponsor or The Commission received three
structured proceedings.’’ 94 AHAM does member, or employee or agent thereof, comments concerning Rule 703.5(j)’s
not proffer any specific changes that other than for purposes of the audit.’’ 99 provision prohibiting binding
should be made, or provide examples of Further, IDSM audits have found ‘‘no arbitration provisions in warranty
why the procedures described in Rule situation of conflict or circumstance contracts.107 AHAM urges the
703 are difficult to follow. As the which might give rise to an impression Commission to delete this provision
Commission stated in 1975 when that [a conflict of interest] exists.’’ 100 because ‘‘it creates disincentives for
adopting the Rule, ‘‘[t]he intent is to Therefore, the Rule contains sufficient manufacturers or sellers to create a
avoid creating artificial or unnecessary safeguards against partiality. Mechanism in the first instance and
procedural burdens so long as the basic leads to wasted and duplicative efforts
c. Modify the Information To Be in cases between the consumers and
goals of speed, fairness, and Submitted to the Mechanism
independent participation are met.’’ 95 manufacturers or sellers.’’ 108 NCLC and
Further, staff’s review of IDSM audits Rule 703.5(d) requires the Mechanism Mr. Johnson ask the Commission to
have not indicated any significant to render a decision ‘‘at least within 40 retain Rule 703.5(j).109
days of notification of the dispute.’’ 101 When the Commission first
concern with IDSM procedures. The
The Center for Auto Safety asks the promulgated Rule 703.5(j) in 1975, it
Commission therefore retains the Rule
Commission to amend Section 703.5 to did so based on the MMWA’s language,
703 procedures.
provide that the ‘‘40 day deadline legislative history, and purpose: to
b. Change Rules on Mechanism and begins upon the consumer filing a ensure that consumer protections were
Auditor Impartiality substantially complete application in place in warranty disputes.110 The
Two commenters 96 state that Rule regardless of whether the VIN is Commission explained that ‘‘reference
703.4 should be amended because provided or not.’’ 102 The Center for within the written warranty to any
neither the Mechanism nor the auditor, Auto Safety claims that the Better binding, non-judicial remedy is
who is selected by the Mechanism, is Business Bureau is evading the 40-day prohibited by the Rule and the Act.’’ 111
impartial. Mr. Nowicki asks the deadline, because the BBB does not The Commission’s underlying premise
Commission to require the Mechanism request Vehicle Identification Number was that its authority over Mechanisms
to be completely independent of any (‘‘VIN’’) information on its consumer encompassed all nonjudicial dispute
warrantor or trade association. Further, intake form but the BBB will only begin resolution procedures referenced within
both the Center for Auto Safety and Mr. to consider the dispute after it receives a written warranty, including
the VIN number. arbitration.
Nowicki assert that a Mechanism should
Section 703.5 requires the Mechanism During the 1996–97 rule review, some
not select an auditor because doing so
to ‘‘investigate, gather and organize all commenters asked the Commission to
creates a conflict of interest. The Center deviate from its position that Rule 703
information necessary for a fair and
for Auto Safety recommends that the
expeditious decision in each
Commission select an auditor for a fee, 103 16 CFR 703.5(c).
and determine whether the Mechanisms 97 16 CFR 703.3(b). 104 See Staff Advisory Opinion to Mr. Dean
are fair and expeditious. 98 Id. Determan, at 6, n6 (Aug. 28, 1985).
No changes are warranted because 99 16
CFR 703.7(d).
105 40 FR 60168, 60193 (Dec. 31, 1975).
Rule 703 already imposes specific 100 See,
e.g., Morrison and Company, 2013 Audit
106 According to the BBB Autoline program, a
requirements concerning the claim is initiated only after a consumer provides the
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES
of BBB Auto Line, available at http://www.ftc.gov/
sites/default/files/documents/reports_annual/2013- VIN and signs the application. A claim cannot be
impartiality of both the Mechanism and initiated online without this information.
audit-better-business-bureau-auto-line-including-
107 See NCLC at 13–14; Johnson at 3; AHAM at
state-florida-and-state-ohio/2013bbbautoline.pdf, at
92 AHAM at 6. 6.
6. The audit further found that ‘‘consumers are
93 Id. 108 AHAM at 6–7.
pleased with the impartiality and the quality of
94 Id. dispute resolution services . . . .’’ Id. 109 NCLC at 13–18; Johnson at 3.
95 40 FR 60168, 60193 (Dec. 31, 1975). 101 16 CFR 703.5(d). 110 40 FR 60168, 60210 (Dec. 31, 1975).
96 Center for Auto Safety at 1; Nowicki at 1. 102 Center for Auto Safety at 1. 111 40 FR 60168, 60211 (Dec. 31, 1975).
VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:02 Jul 17, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\20JYR1.SGM 20JYR1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/80_FR_42848/page/9.svg)
![Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 138 / Monday, July 20, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 42719
bans mandatory binding arbitration in that IDSMs resulting in a ‘‘decision’’— Just as important, any argument that
warranties. The Commission, however, i.e., arbitration decisions rather than an ‘‘arbitration’’ can somehow elude
relying on its previous analysis and the conciliation or mediation mechanisms— classification as an IDSM would subvert
MMWA’s statutory language, reaffirmed would precede and influence, but not the purposes of the MMWA’s IDSM
its view that the MMWA and Rule 703 foreclose, a subsequent judicial provisions. To effectuate its declared
prohibit mandatory binding decision. policy of encouraging IDSMs that ‘‘fairly
arbitration.112 As the Commission As the Commission has previously and expeditiously’’ settle consumer
noted, Section 2310(a)(3) of the MMWA noted, the legislative history provides disputes, Congress: (1) Created
states that, if a warrantor incorporates additional evidence that Congress incentives for warrantors to develop
an IDSM provision in its warranty, ‘‘the intended all IDSMs, including IDSMs and (2) directed the Commission
consumer may not commence a civil arbitration proceedings, to be to issue and enforce baseline rules for
action (other than a class action) . . . nonbinding.120 The House committee IDSMs.124 Congress would not have
unless he initially resorts to such report stated that ‘‘[a]n adverse decision created this elaborate structure for
procedure.’’ 113 The Commission in any informal dispute settlement warrantor incentives and agency
concluded ‘‘Rule 703 will continue to proceeding would not be a bar to a civil supervision of warrantors who want to
prohibit warrantors from including action on the warranty involved in the mandate use of certain contractual
binding arbitration clauses in their proceeding. . . .’’ 121 That language procedures in their warranties, while
contracts with consumers that would confirms what Congress strongly simultaneously permitting warrantors to
require consumers to submit warranty implies in the statutory text: arbitration evade that structure simply by using
disputes to binding arbitration.’’ 114 should precede but not preclude a another contractual procedure and
Since the issuance of the 1999 FRN, subsequent court action. calling it something else (e.g., ‘‘binding
courts have reached different The statutory scheme forecloses any arbitration’’) and thereby immunizing it
conclusions as to whether the MMWA argument that warranty-related from all agency oversight.125 Other
gives the Commission authority to ban arbitration proceedings fall outside the courts have upheld binding arbitration
mandatory binding arbitration in statutory category of ‘‘informal dispute in this context on the ground that the
warranties.115 In particular, two resolution mechanisms’’ and thus rationale of Rule 703 demonstrates an
appellate courts have questioned outside the FTC’s rulemaking authority. impermissible hostility toward
whether Congress intended binding As many legislators, policymakers, and arbitration in general and binding
arbitration to be considered a type of courts understood at the time of the arbitration in particular.126 The
IDSM, which would potentially place MMWA’s enactment, any arbitration Commission does not believe this is
binding arbitration outside the scope of proceeding is, by comparison to judicial correct. Like the statutory text, the
the MMWA.116 Nonetheless, the proceedings, an ‘‘informal’’ Commission’s rules encourage
Commission reaffirms its long-held view ‘‘mechanism’’ for ‘‘dispute settlement,’’ arbitration proceedings when they
that the MMWA disfavors, and and it thus falls squarely within the comply with IDSM procedural
authorizes the Commission to prohibit, plain meaning of the term ‘‘informal safeguards and are not both mandatory
mandatory binding arbitration in dispute settlement mechanism.’’ 122 and binding. Moreover, the
warranties.117 Similarly, the MMWA’s conference Commission’s rules permit ‘‘post-
First, as the Commission observed report indicates that ‘‘arbiters’’—i.e., the dispute’’ binding arbitration, where the
during the 1999 rule review, the text of decisionmakers in any arbitration parties agree—after a warranty dispute
section 2310(a)(3)(C)(i) contemplates proceeding—are responsible for making has arisen—to resolve their
that consumers will ‘‘initially resort’’ to determinations in IDSMs, and thus disagreement through arbitration.127
IDSMs before commencing a civil further confirms that arbitration is a The Commission has also recognized
action. That language clearly form of IDSM.123 that post-Mechanism binding arbitration
presupposes that ‘‘a mechanism’s is allowed.128 The Commission’s
decision cannot be binding, because if it 120 64
FR 19700, 19708 (Apr. 22, 1999). prohibition is limited only to instances
were, it would bar later court 121 Reportto Accompany H.R. 7917, H.R. Rep. No.
where binding arbitration is
93–1107, at 41 (1974) (report of the House
action.’’ 118 Similarly, section Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce); incorporated into the terms of a written
2310(a)(3)(C) specifies that ‘‘decisions’’ see also S. Rep. No. 93–151, at 3 (1973) (report of warranty governed by the MMWA.129
in IDSMs shall be admissible in any the Senate Committee on Commerce) (‘‘[I]f the AHAM also argues that eliminating
subsequent ‘‘civil action.’’ 119 As that consumer is not satisfied with the results obtained
in any informal dispute settlement proceeding, the the prohibition on binding arbitration
language confirms, Congress intended consumer can pursue his legal remedies in a court would remove disincentives for
of competent jurisdiction. . . .’’). warrantors to create a Mechanism and
112 64 FR 19700, 19708 (Apr. 22, 1999). 122 See, e.g., 119 Cong. Rec. 33,498 (1973)
reduce judicial costs spent dealing with
113 Id. (quoting 15 U.S.C. 2310(a)(3)(C)(i)). (statement of Sen. Magnuson); Consumer
114 64 FR 19700, 19708 (Apr. 22, 1999). Protection: Hearings Before the Consumer duplicative warranty cases. However,
115 See, e.g., Kolev v. Euromotors West/The Auto Subcomm. of the S. Comm. on Commerce, S. Doc.
Gallery, 658 F.3d 1024 (9th Cir. 2011), withdrawn, No. 91–48, at 69 (1969) (statement of FTC the duty has been found reasonable in ‘‘an
676 F.3d 867 (9th Cir. 2012) (withdrawn pending Commissioner Elman); Alexander v. Gardner- administrative or judicial enforcement proceeding’’
the issuance of a decision on a separate issue by the Denver Co., 415 U.S. 36, 58 (1974). The Supreme or ‘‘an informal dispute settlement proceeding.’’ 15
Court has repeatedly confirmed that arbitration is U.S.C. 2304(b)(1). The conference report indicates
California Supreme Court in Sanchez v. Valencia
a method of informal dispute resolution. See, e.g., that the reasonableness of the additional duty is to
Holding Co., S199119); Davis v. Southern Energy
AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion, 131 S. Ct. 1740, be determined by ‘‘the Commission, an arbiter, or
Homes, Inc., 305 F.3d 1268 (11th Cir. 2002); Walton
1749 (2011) (‘‘[T]he informality of arbitral a court.’’ S. Rep. No. 93–1408, at 25, H.R. Rep. No.
v. Rose Mobile Homes, LLC, 298 F.3d 470 (5th Cir.
proceedings is itself desirable, reducing the cost 93–1606, at 25 (1974) (Conf. Rep.) (emphasis
2002); see also Seney v. Rent-A-Center, Inc., 738
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES
and increasing the speed of dispute resolution.’’); added).
F.3d 631 (4th Cir. 2013).
116 Davis v. Southern Energy Homes, Inc., 305
Mitsubishi Motors v. Soler Chrysler-Plymouth, Inc., 124 15 U.S.C. 2310(a)(1)–(4).
473 U.S. 614, 628 (1985) (‘‘By agreeing to arbitrate 125 9 U.S.C. 1–16.
F.3d 1268 (11th Cir. 2002); Walton v. Rose Mobile . . ., [a party] trades the procedures and
Homes, LLC, 298 F.3d 470 (5th Cir. 2002). opportunity for review of the courtroom for the
126 See, e.g., Davis v. S. Energy Homes, Inc., 305
117 See 40 FR 60168, 60210 (Dec. 31, 1975) and
simplicity, informality, and expedition of F.3d 1268 (11th Cir. 2002).
64 FR 19700, 19708 (Apr. 22, 1999). arbitration.’’). 127 See 40 FR 60168, 60211 (Dec. 31, 1975).
118 64 FR 19700, 19708 (Apr. 22, 1999). 123 Section 2304(b)(1) prohibits warrantors from 128 Id.
119 15 U.S.C. 2310(a)(3). imposing any additional duty on consumers unless 129 Id.
VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:02 Jul 17, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\20JYR1.SGM 20JYR1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/80_FR_42848/page/10.svg)
![42720 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 138 / Monday, July 20, 2015 / Rules and Regulations
Congress already considered the issues determine whether the IDSM program is disputes.141 Given that Rule 703 already
of warrantor incentives and availability working fairly and expeditiously. Based contemplates public access to
of judicial remedies. To encourage on that review, a more detailed Mechanism information, and that the
warrantors to create Mechanisms, investigation could then be Commission was mindful that
Section 2310(a)(3) allows warrantors to prompted.’’ 136 In addition, the substantial recordkeeping costs may
specify that use of a Mechanism is a Commission was mindful of the costs discourage the establishment of IDSMs,
prerequisite to filing a MMWA suit.130 associated with substantial record- the Commission will not impose at this
The Commission believes that the keeping requirements, so as not to time a mandatory electronic access
current Rule appropriately implements discourage the establishment of IDSMs. requirement. Further, the Commission
the incentive structure that Congress ‘‘Therefore, the Commission sought to staff reviews the audits annually and
established in the MMWA. minimize the costs of the recordkeeping confirms they are Rule 703 compliant.
burden on the IDSM while ensuring that For these reasons, the Commission
e. Change the Statistical Requirements
sufficient information was available to retains Rule 703.8 unchanged.
Rule 703.6 requires the Mechanism to the public to provide a minimal
prepare indices and statistical review.’’ 137 The Commission has 5. 16 CFR Part 239: Warranty Guides
compilations on a variety of issues, reviewed the issue and believes that its Several commenters ask the
including warrantor performance, previous position continues to be Commission to revise its Warranty
brands at issue, all disputes delayed correct. Guides. First, three commenters 142 ask
beyond 40 days, and the number and the Commission to modify § 239.2 to
percentage of disputes that were f. Audits and Recordkeeping
Availability allow for the advertising of warranties
resolved, decided, or pending.131 The online. The Commission’s Guides are
Commission requires the compilation of Rule 703.7 contains the audit not specific to any medium, and already
indices and statistics in part so any requirements for the Mechanism. The are applicable to all media. Second,
person can review a Mechanism’s files. Rule requires that an audit be performed commenters recommend that the Guides
‘‘On the basis of the statistically annually evaluating: (1) Warrantors’ provide explicit, detailed guidance
reported performance, an interested efforts to make consumers aware of the explaining how retailers and warrantors
person could determine to file a Mechanism and (2) a random sample of can comply with the MMWA. As stated
complaint with the Federal Trade disputes to determine the adequacy of previously, the .Com Disclosures and
Commission . . . and thereby cause the the Mechanism’s complaint intake- the Businessperson’s Guide to Federal
Commission to review the bona fide process and investigation and accuracy Warranty Law both provide additional
operation of the dispute resolution of the Mechanism’s statistical guidance concerning online disclosure
mechanism.’’ 132 compilations.138 Each audit should be obligations. Therefore, part 239 will
Two commenters, the Center for Auto submitted to the Commission and made remain unchanged.143
Safety and Mr. Nowicki, ask the available to the public at a reasonable
Commission to repeal the Mechanism’s cost. For the last several years, the List of Subjects
record-keeping requirements contained Commission has published the audits 16 CFR Part 700
in Rule 703.6.133 The Center for Auto on its Web site, making them available
Safety claims that most of the categories to the public free of charge. Trade practices, Warranties.
for statistical analysis ‘‘are ambiguous, One commenter asks the Commission
misleading or deceptive. Unfavorable to change Rule 703.8 to ‘‘mak[e] all 16 CFR Part 701
consumer outcomes can be reported as IDSM documents available online, and Trade practices, Warranties.
favorable; untimely resolutions can be requir[e] the Commission to review
reported as timely.’’ 134 samples of disputes to determine 16 CFR Part 703
Similar comments were received whether the mechanism fairly and Trade practices, Warranties.
during the previous rule review. Then, expeditiously resolves disputes.’’ 139
commenters urged the Commission to Another commenter recommends that For the reasons set forth above, the
abolish Rule 703.6 because the the Commission repeal the audit Federal Trade Commission amends 16
categories of statistical compilation requirements for the same reasons as the CFR parts 700, 701, and 703 as follows:
were ‘‘either moot, nebulous, or even statistical compilation requirements.140
worse, misleading or deceptive.’’ 135 The Similar to the Commission’s reasoning 141 16 CFR 703.8.
Commission then stated that it in upholding the statistical compilation 142 AHAM at 3; National Automobile Dealers
appreciated that Rule 703.6(e)’s Association at 2; Steinborn at 3.
requirements, the Commission has 143 AHAM and Steinborn ask the Commission to
statistical compilations cannot provide decided to retain the audit requirements amend part 239 to recognize that ‘‘referral of
an in-depth picture of the workings of without change for two reasons. First, consumers to manufacturer Internet sites which
the Mechanism. ‘‘However, the statistics like the statistical compilation make available warranty information satisfies the
were not intended to serve that requirements, the audit function requirement to disclose the actual product warranty
information prior to purchase by consumer.’’
function. The statistical compilations attempts to provide a general basis for AHAM at 3; Steinborn at 3–4. Such reference is
attempt to provide a basis for minimal interested parties to determine whether already contemplated for online retailers. Such
review by the interested parties to the IDSM program is working fairly and reference, however, would be contrary to the
expeditiously. Second, the IDSM must requirements imposed for offline retailers, as
130 15 U.S.C. 2310(a)(3). discussed above. Second, AHAM recommends that
make available the statistical summaries the Guides be amended to require advertisers ‘‘to
131 See generally 16 CFR 703.6(b)–(e). to interested parties upon request, and
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES
132 40 FR 60168, 60213 (Dec. 31, 1975).
clearly and conspicuously disclose what
133 Center for Auto Safety at 1; Nowicki at 2.
hold open meetings to hear and decide component/system is warranted and for what
duration and if the balance of the product is not
134 Center for Auto Safety at 1. Nowicki claims
136 Id. covered or covered for a different duration disclose
that empirical evidence suggests that the that as well to prevent the consumer from believing
137 Id.
‘‘compliance self-proclamations’’ may be false and that the terms of the warranty apply to the entire
138 16CFR 703.7.
warranties may be deceptive. product.’’ AHAM at 3–4. These requirements,
135 See 64 FR 19700, 19710 (Apr. 22, 1999) 139 Nowicki at 2. however, are already encompassed in Rule
(discussing Mr. Nowicki’s comment). 140 Center for Auto Safety at 1. 701.3(a)(2) and therefore not needed in the Guides.
VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:02 Jul 17, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\20JYR1.SGM 20JYR1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/80_FR_42848/page/11.svg)
![Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 138 / Monday, July 20, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 42723
By direction of the Commission, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND POSTAL REGULATORY COMMISSION
Commissioner Ohlhausen dissenting. HUMAN SERVICES
Donald S. Clark, 39 CFR Part 3020
Secretary. Food and Drug Administration [Docket Nos. MC2010–21 and CP2010–36]
Note: The following dissent will not appear 21 CFR Part 16
in the Code of Federal Regulations. Update to Product Lists
[Docket No. FDA–2015–N–0011] AGENCY: Postal Regulatory Commission.
Dissenting Statement of Commissioner ACTION: Final rule.
Maureen K. Ohlhausen Regulatory Hearing Before the Food
and Drug Administration; Technical SUMMARY: The Commission is updating
I voted against the Commission’s
Amendment the product lists. This action reflects a
Final Revised Interpretations of the
Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act (MMWA) AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, publication policy adopted by
Rule because it retains Rule 703.5(j)’s HHS. Commission order. The referenced
prohibition on pre-dispute mandatory policy assumes periodic updates. The
Final rule; technical
ACTION:
updates are identified in the body of
binding arbitration.1 amendment.
Since the last Rule review in 1997, this document. The product lists, which
two federal appellate courts have held SUMMARY: The Food and Drug is re-published in its entirety, includes
that the MMWA does not prohibit Administration (FDA) is updating an these updates.
binding arbitration.2 Noting the federal authority citation for the Code of DATES: Effective date: July 20, 2015.
policy favoring arbitration expressed in Federal Regulations. This action is Applicability dates: March 31, 2015,
the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA),3 technical in nature and is intended to Parcel Return Service Contract 6
these courts concluded that the provide accuracy of the Agency’s (MC2015–41 and CP2015–53); April 8,
MMWA’s statutory language and regulations. 2015, Priority Mail Contract 121
legislative history did not overcome the (MC2015–43 and CP2015–54); April 8,
DATES: This rule is effective July 20, 2015, Parcel Select Contract 9 (MC2015–
presumption in favor of arbitration and 2015.
that the purposes of the MMWA and the 44 and CP2015–55); April 8, 2015,
FAA were not in inherent conflict. The FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Priority Mail & First-Class Package
courts also declined to give the Mary E. Kennelly, Office of Regulatory Service Contract 3 (MC2015–45 and
Commission’s contrary interpretation Affairs, Food and Drug Administration, CP2015–56); April 21, 2015, Priority
Chevron deference.4 Although some 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 32, Mail Express & Priority Mail Contract 17
lower courts have reached a different Rm. 4338, Silver Spring, MD 20993– (MC2015–47 and CP2015–58); April 21,
conclusion, there is no circuit court 0002, 240–402–9577, 2015, Priority Mail Contract 122
precedent upholding the Commission’s FDASIAImplementationORA@ (MC2015–46 and CP2015–57); May 1,
interpretation of the MMWA in Rule fda.hhs.gov. 2015, Priority Mail & First-Class Package
703.5(j). Additionally, in several recent Service Contract 4 (MC2015–48 and
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In a CP2015–60); May 12, 2015, Priority Mail
cases, the Supreme Court has indicated previous rulemaking, the authority
a strong preference for arbitration.5 Express & Priority Mail Contract 18
citation for 21 CFR part 16 was (MC2015–49 and CP2015–61); May 27,
The courts have sent a clear signal inadvertently altered to omit 28 U.S.C.
that the Commission’s position that 2015, Global Expedited Package
2112 and changed 21 U.S.C. 467f to 21 Services Contracts Non-Published Rates
MMWA prohibits binding arbitration is U.S.C. 467F. FDA is reversing those
no longer supportable.6 When faced 6 (MC2015–23 and CP2015–65); May 28,
changes such that 28 U.S.C. 2112 and 21 2015, Parcel Return Service Contract 7
with such a signal, the Commission U.S.C. 467f are included in the list of
should not reaffirm the rule in question. (MC2015–50 and CP2015–72); May 28,
authority citations for 21 CFR part 16. 2015, Parcel Return Service Contract 8
I therefore respectfully dissent.
[FR Doc. 2015–14065 Filed 7–17–15; 8:45 am] List of Subjects in 21 CFR Part16 (MC2015–51 and CP2015–73); June 9,
2015, Priority Mail Contract 124
BILLING CODE 6750–01–P Administrative practice and (MC2015–53 and CP2015–81); June 9,
procedure. 2015, Priority Mail Contract 123
1 I do not object to the other final actions taken
Therefore, under the Federal Food, (MC2015–52 and CP2015–80); June 16,
in this review.
2 See Walton v. Rose Mobile Homes, LLC, 298 Drug, and Cosmetic Act and under 2015, Priority Mail Contract 125
F.3d 470 (5th Cir. 2002); Davis v. Southern Energy authority delegated to the Commissioner (MC2015–54 and CP2015–82).
Homes, Inc., 305 F.3d 1268 (11th Cir. 2002). of Food and Drugs, 21 CFR part 16 is FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
3 9 U.S.C. 1. See Shearson/Am. Express Inc. v.
amended as follows: David A. Trissell, General Counsel, at
McMahon, 482 U.S. 220 (1987) (noting that the
presumption of the FAA is that arbitration is PART 16—REGULATORY HEARING 202–789–6800.
preferable and Congress must clearly override that SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This
presumption if it is to be disregarded). BEFORE THE FOOD AND DRUG
4 Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources ADMINISTRATION document identifies updates to the
Defense Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837 (1984) (holding product lists, which appear as 39 CFR
that courts defer to an agency’s interpretation of a ■ 1. The authority citation for 21 CFR Appendix A to Subpart A of Part 3020—
statute if ‘‘(1) Congress has not spoken directly to part 16 is revised to read as follows: Mail Classification Schedule.
the issue; and (2) the agency’s interpretation ‘is Publication of the updated product lists
based on a permissible construction of the Authority: 15 U.S.C. 1451–1461; 21 U.S.C.
141–149, 321–394, 467f, 679, 821, 1034; 28 in the Federal Register is addressed in
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES
statute’ ’’).
5 See, e.g,. Am. Express Co. v. Italian Colors Rest., U.S.C. 2112; 42 U.S.C. 201–262, 263b, 364. the Postal Accountability and
133 S. Ct. 2304 (2013), AT&T Mobility LLC v. Enhancement Act (PAEA) of 2006.
Concepcion, 131 S. Ct. 1740 (2011). Dated: July 15, 2015. Authorization. The Commission
6 See Davis, 305 F.3d at 1280 (‘‘[T]he FTC’s Leslie Kux, process for periodic publication of
interpretation of the MMWA is unreasonable, and Associate Commissioner for Policy.
we decline to defer to the FTC regulations of the
updates was established in Docket Nos.
MMWA regarding binding arbitration in written [FR Doc. 2015–17714 Filed 7–17–15; 8:45 am] MC2010–21 and CP2010–36, Order No.
warranties.’’). BILLING CODE 4164–01–P 445, April 22, 2010, at 8.
VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:02 Jul 17, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00017 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\20JYR1.SGM 20JYR1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/80_FR_42848/page/14.svg)
Document Created: 2015-12-15 12:58:00
Document Modified: 2015-12-15 12:58:00
| Category | Regulatory Information | |
| Collection | Federal Register | |
| sudoc Class | AE 2.7: GS 4.107: AE 2.106: | |
| Publisher | Office of the Federal Register, National Archives and Records Administration | |
| Section | Rules and Regulations | |
| Action | Final revised Interpretations; Final clerical changes to Rules; and Conclusion of review proceedings. | |
| Dates | The changes to the Interpretations and Rules will take effect on July 20, 2015. | |
| Contact | Svetlana S. Gans, Staff Attorney, Division of Marketing Practices, Federal Trade Commission, Washington, DC 20580, (202) 326-3708. | |
| FR Citation | 80 FR 42710 | |
| RIN Number | 3084-AB24, 3084-AB25 and 3084-AB26 | |
| CFR Citation | 16
CFR
700 16 CFR 701 16 CFR 703 | |
| CFR Associated | Trade Practices and Warranties |
2024 Federal Register | Disclaimer | Privacy Policy
USC | CFR | eCFR