Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act

The Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act (1975) — codified at 15 U.S.C. §§ 2301–2312 — is the federal law governing written warranties on consumer products, requiring manufacturers and sellers who provide written warranties to disclose warranty terms clearly and completely, prohibiting "full warranties" that impose burdensome conditions, and — critically — giving consumers a private right of action to sue in federal court for warranty violations, including the right to recover attorneys' fees. Magnuson-Moss doesn't require companies to offer warranties, but if they do, the law governs what they must disclose and prohibits deceptive terms. A "full warranty" must repair or replace a defective product within a reasonable time at no charge; a "limited warranty" is any lesser coverage — but both must be clearly labeled. The Act is best known for two practical applications: state lemon laws (most states have their own lemon law statutes that build on Magnuson-Moss to provide additional remedies for defective vehicles) and the prohibition on warranty conditions that require consumers to use the manufacturer's own service or parts — the "tie-in" prohibition that protects consumers' right to repair with third-party services and components. The FTC enforces Magnuson-Moss through rulemaking (the FTC Warranty Rules, 16 CFR Parts 700–703) and consumer protection enforcement, while private consumers can sue directly for damages, diminution of value, and attorneys' fees.

Current Law (2026)

Legal Authority

• 15 U.S.C. § 2302 — Rules governing contents of warranties (FTC rules require clear and conspicuous disclosure of warranty terms: what is covered, duration, how to obtain service, any exclusions or limitations)
• 15 U.S.C. § 2303 — Designation of warranties (written warranties must be designated as either "full" or "limited" — allowing consumers to compare warranty coverage before purchase)
• 15 U.S.C. § 2304 — Federal minimum standards for full warranties (a full warranty must: remedy defects within a reasonable time without charge; not impose unreasonable conditions on obtaining remedy; provide refund or replacement if defect cannot be repaired after reasonable number of attempts)
• 15 U.S.C. § 2308 — Implied warranties (a warrantor who provides any written warranty may NOT disclaim or modify implied warranties — the implied warranty of merchantability and fitness for a particular purpose survive)
• 15 U.S.C. § 2310 — Consumer remedies (consumers may sue warrantors for breach; prevailing consumers may recover costs and attorney fees; class actions permitted; informal dispute resolution mechanisms may be required before suit)

How It Works

The Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act is the federal law that governs written warranties on consumer products — requiring clear disclosure of warranty terms, establishing minimum standards, and protecting consumers' legal remedies when products fail. It is administered by the Federal Trade Commission alongside the broader Dodd-Frank consumer protection framework.

The Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act doesn't require manufacturers to provide warranties — but if they do, the law governs what they must disclose and prohibits deceptive terms. The core requirements under 15 U.S.C. § 2302: clear disclosure of warranty terms before purchase (what's covered, what's excluded, how to get service, and duration); designation as either "full" or "limited"; and a federal private right of action allowing consumers to sue for breach and recover attorney fees. A "full" warranty under § 2304 must repair or replace defective products within a reasonable time at no charge, impose no unreasonable conditions on getting service, and offer a refund or replacement if the product can't be fixed after a reasonable number of attempts. A "limited" warranty is any warranty that doesn't meet all those standards — and most warranties on consumer electronics, appliances, and vehicles are "limited," potentially excluding labor costs, imposing time limits, or restricting remedies. The full/limited designation must appear prominently so consumers can compare before buying. Perhaps the Act's most important protection is its implied warranty shield under § 2308: under the Uniform Commercial Code, every sale includes an implied warranty of merchantability — that the product works as expected for its ordinary purpose. Without Magnuson-Moss, sellers could disclaim these implied warranties through "as-is" language. The Act prevents this: if a warrantor provides any written warranty, even a limited 90-day warranty, they cannot disclaim implied warranties — they can limit the duration to match the written warranty period, but they cannot eliminate implied warranties entirely.

The second major protection is the tie-in sales prohibition under § 2302(c): warrantors generally cannot condition warranty coverage on the consumer's use of a specific brand of parts or service provider. A car manufacturer cannot void the warranty because the owner used an independent repair shop or non-branded oil filters; a consumer electronics maker cannot void it because a local shop replaced the screen. Exceptions exist only if the warrantor provides the parts or service for free or if the FTC grants a waiver — neither is common. This anti-tying provision has become the legal foundation for the right to repair movement; the FTC has issued enforcement guidance confirming that "warranty void if opened" stickers and similar practices violate Magnuson-Moss, and multiple state attorneys general have pursued manufacturers for these violations. Magnuson-Moss class actions — particularly for automotive defects — remain a significant enforcement pathway because the attorney fee provision makes warranty breach economically viable even for relatively low-value individual claims.

How It Affects You

If you're a consumer buying a product with a warranty: Before you buy, the law requires the warranty to be available for your review — not buried in a box you can't open until you've already purchased. For products costing $15 or more, retailers must make the warranty available before sale under 16 CFR Part 702: either on the packaging, displayed near the product, or available on request. Ask to see the warranty if you can't find it on the box.

Know the difference between what you're getting: (1) Full warranty — the product must be repaired or replaced within a reasonable time at no charge; if it can't be fixed after a reasonable number of attempts, you get a refund or replacement; no unreasonable conditions may be imposed on getting service. (2) Limited warranty — covers less; may impose conditions like labor charges, shipping costs, or shorter coverage periods. Most consumer warranties are "limited" — check the label. (3) Implied warranty — even without any written warranty, every product carries an implied warranty of merchantability (it works as expected for its intended purpose) under your state's version of the UCC. The key Magnuson-Moss protection: if the manufacturer gave you any written warranty, they cannot disclaim implied warranties (though they may limit their duration to the written warranty period).

When a product fails under warranty and the manufacturer refuses to honor it: (1) document everything — keep all receipts, correspondence, photos of the defect, and records of every repair attempt; (2) send a written warranty claim by certified mail to the manufacturer's warranty department; (3) if refused, file a complaint with the FTC at ftc.gov/complaint (for misleading warranty terms) and your state attorney general's consumer protection division (most states have online complaint forms). Magnuson-Moss gives you a private right of action to sue in federal or state court for breach of written or implied warranty — and if you win, the warrantor pays your attorney fees. The attorney fee provision is why warranty breach cases are economically viable: a $200 product claim becomes legally worth pursuing when the manufacturer pays legal costs.

If you've been told your warranty is void because you used a non-OEM part or independent repair shop: This is likely a Magnuson-Moss violation. The tie-in prohibition (15 U.S.C. § 2302(c)) generally bars warrantors from conditioning warranty coverage on the consumer's use of the manufacturer's brand of parts or service. Translation: a car manufacturer cannot void your warranty because you had an independent shop change your oil or install aftermarket brake pads. A consumer electronics maker cannot void your warranty because you had a local repair shop replace a broken screen instead of paying manufacturer rates.

There's a narrow exception: the manufacturer can condition the warranty on using their parts/service only if they provide those parts or service for free as part of the warranty, or if the FTC grants an explicit waiver. Neither exception is common. If a company denies your warranty claim citing third-party service: (1) respond in writing citing the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act tie-in prohibition; (2) file a complaint with the FTC at reportfraud.ftc.gov; (3) if the claim involves a "void if opened" sticker or similar restriction, the FTC has explicitly stated these violate Magnuson-Moss — your documentation of the sticker is evidence. Many state attorneys general have also pursued manufacturers for Magnuson-Moss warranty void violations; file with both. For significant-value claims ($500+), consult a consumer protection attorney — the attorney fee shifting provision means many attorneys will take these cases on contingency.

If you're dealing with a defective vehicle and considering a lemon law claim: Federal Magnuson-Moss and your state's lemon law typically work together and may both apply. The federal Magnuson-Moss route applies to the manufacturer's written warranty (the "limited warranty" that came with the vehicle). State lemon laws have their own criteria — typically requiring: (1) a defect that substantially impairs the vehicle's use, value, or safety; (2) a certain number of repair attempts (typically 4 attempts for the same defect, or 30+ days out of service in a 12-month period); (3) written notice to the manufacturer giving them a final repair opportunity; and (4) the defect must appear within the warranty period (typically 24 months/24,000 miles for many state lemon laws). If these criteria are met, state lemon laws typically require a refund (purchase price minus a mileage offset) or replacement vehicle.

Key practical steps for a lemon law claim: (1) Document every repair visit — get written repair orders each time, documenting what symptom was described, what repairs were attempted, and how many days the car was in the shop; (2) Send certified mail notice to the manufacturer's Customer Relations department informing them of the defect and the number of failed repair attempts, and giving them one last opportunity to repair; (3) If the problem isn't fixed, contact your state's lemon law arbitration program (required in many states before litigation) — find yours through your state attorney general's consumer protection division; (4) If the arbitration decision is unsatisfactory, many state lemon laws allow you to sue in state court and recover the vehicle purchase price plus attorney fees and costs. Lemon law attorneys generally work on contingency because manufacturers pay attorney fees when consumers prevail.

If you're a manufacturer or retailer offering written warranties: Federal Magnuson-Moss compliance is straightforward but must be built into your warranty documentation system. The required disclosures under 16 CFR Part 701: (1) warrantor identity and address; (2) what product or parts are covered; (3) what the warrantor will do when the product fails (repair, replace, or refund) and at whose expense; (4) what is NOT covered; (5) when the warranty takes effect and how long it lasts; (6) how the consumer gets warranty service; and (7) any informal dispute settlement mechanism you offer. These disclosures must appear clearly and conspicuously in a single document — they can't be scattered across different documents or obscured in fine print.

Your warranty must be available before purchase under 16 CFR Part 702: for in-store sales, display the warranty near the product or make it available on request; for mail-order or online sales, include the warranty terms in the catalog or provide a toll-free number to request them. For online retailers, publishing warranty terms on your product page satisfies this requirement. Violations of pre-sale availability requirements are FTC violations subject to civil penalties.

On implied warranties: if you provide any written warranty (even a 90-day limited warranty), you cannot use "AS IS" language or otherwise disclaim implied warranties in connection with that product. The implied warranty of merchantability survives — consumers can sue you if the product doesn't work as expected even if your written warranty has expired, subject to your state's statute of limitations (typically 4 years under the UCC). Design your warranties knowing this exposure exists.

Warranty disputes involving financed products may also implicate CFPB jurisdiction when the financing terms are tied to warranty obligations.

State Variations

• Magnuson-Moss is a federal floor — states can provide stronger consumer warranty protections
• All states have adopted the UCC, which provides implied warranties of merchantability and fitness
• State "lemon laws" (covering new vehicles with persistent defects) supplement Magnuson-Moss — every state has one
• Some states restrict the ability to limit implied warranty duration beyond what Magnuson-Moss allows
• State consumer protection statutes (unfair/deceptive practices acts) provide additional warranty-related remedies

Implementing Regulations

• 16 CFR Part 700 — Interpretations of Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act: the FTC's official interpretations clarifying the scope and application of warranty law requirements — the rules that fill in what the statute's broad language means in practice:

  • § 700.1 — Products covered: the Act applies to written warranties on tangible personal property normally used for personal, family, or household purposes; property normally used for personal/family/household purposes remains covered even when an individual consumer uses it for commercial purposes; the FTC's interpretation is inclusive — consumer electronics, appliances, vehicles, furniture, clothing, toys, and any other tangible personal property sold to consumers are covered; software, services, and real property are not; if a product is sometimes used commercially and sometimes personally, the Act still applies if personal use is normal for that type of product
  • § 700.3 — What constitutes a "written warranty": a representation is a "written warranty" under the Act if it (a) affirms or promises that a defect, malfunction, or failure of the product will be remedied, OR (b) undertakes to refund, repair, replace, or take other remedial action; a general satisfaction statement ("we stand behind our products") without a specific commitment to remedy defects is NOT a written warranty; energy efficiency ratings, safety certifications, and mere product descriptions are NOT warranties — they must contain affirmations about what will happen if the product is defective
  • § 700.5 — General policy statements: statements of "general policy" regarding customer satisfaction ("we guarantee satisfaction or your money back") are NOT written warranties if they are not subject to specific conditions — they are aspirational statements that the Act does not regulate; however, if a warrantor makes a general satisfaction statement AND specifies conditions (e.g., "30-day satisfaction guarantee with receipt"), it becomes a written warranty and must comply
  • § 700.6 — "Full" vs. "Limited" warranty designation: written warranties on products costing more than $15 must be designated as either "Full [duration] Warranty" or "Limited Warranty" — the designation is mandatory; a warranty that doesn't meet all the requirements for a full warranty must be designated "Limited"; using "Full" when the warranty actually has limitations is an FTC violation; a "Full Warranty" must repair or replace a defective product within a reasonable time at no charge, must not require the consumer to return a registration card, and must not limit coverage to original purchasers only
  • § 700.7 — Warranty registration cards: a warrantor offering a full warranty may NOT require the consumer to return a registration card or take any other affirmative action as a condition of receiving warranty protection; requiring registration as a condition of coverage is prohibited for full warranties; registration may still be offered as an optional benefit (e.g., to receive recall notices) but cannot be made mandatory; limited warranties may impose reasonable registration requirements if clearly disclosed
  • § 700.10 — Prohibited "tying arrangements": a warranty may NOT be conditioned on the consumer using any article, service, or parts provided by the warrantor — this is the right to repair provision; a car manufacturer cannot void your warranty because you had an independent mechanic service your car or used third-party parts, unless the warrantor proves the third-party service/parts caused the defect; tying warranty coverage to the use of manufacturer-authorized service centers or branded parts is prohibited unless the warrantor provides the service/parts for free
  • § 700.11 — Warranty vs. service contract vs. insurance: a written warranty is part of the original product purchase price; a service contract is a separate agreement sold for additional consideration; insurance is regulated by state law; these distinctions matter because only written warranties are subject to Magnuson-Moss disclosure requirements — "extended warranties" sold separately are service contracts, not warranties, and are not required to comply with Magnuson-Moss disclosure rules (though they are subject to FTC unfair/deceptive practices authority)

  The tying prohibition in § 700.10 has become increasingly significant in the "right to repair" movement — advocates argue that manufacturers who void warranties for third-party repairs violate Magnuson-Moss; the FTC has agreed in enforcement actions and policy statements. The FTC's 2021 Right to Repair policy statement cited Magnuson-Moss as one of the bases for enforcement against manufacturers who illegally tie warranty coverage to authorized repair services. Recent FTC action: FTC sent warning letters in 2018-2019 to multiple manufacturers (including game console makers) whose warranty stickers stated "warranty void if opened" — the letters found these statements violated the tying prohibition and required corrections.

• 16 CFR Part 701 — Disclosure of Written Consumer Product Warranty Terms and Conditions. Key provisions:

  • § 701.2 — Scope: applies to written warranties on consumer products costing the consumer more than $15.00; products under $15 are not required to comply with the disclosure requirements
  • § 701.3 — Required warranty contents: any written warranty on a product costing over $15 must clearly and conspicuously disclose in a single document in simple, readily understood language: (a) the identity of the warrantor and how to obtain warranty service; (b) what products or parts are covered (and what is excluded or limited); (c) what the warrantor will do if the product is defective — repair, replace, or refund, and at whose expense; (d) the duration of the warranty; (e) any limitations on consequential or incidental damages (if applicable, must be conspicuously disclosed); (f) step-by-step instructions on how to get warranty service; and (g) information about any informal dispute resolution mechanism
  • § 701.4 — Owner registration cards: if a registration card return is a condition of warranty coverage, that fact must be disclosed in the warranty; if return appears to be required but is not, the warranty must affirmatively state that return is not required to activate coverage — this section prevents the common practice of using registration cards to create the appearance of a coverage condition that doesn't legally exist

• 16 CFR Part 702 — Pre-Sale Availability of Written Warranty Terms. Key provisions:

  • § 702.2 — Scope: applies to consumer products costing the consumer more than $15.00 — same threshold as the disclosure requirements in 16 CFR Part 701
  • § 702.3(a) — Seller duties: before a sale, sellers must make the full warranty text readily available for examination by the prospective buyer by: (1) displaying it in close proximity to the warranted product (including digitally if the warrantor has made warranty text available electronically); (2) maintaining binders of warranties by product brand and model number, clearly labeled, at each location where the product is sold; or (3) posting clear signs telling customers that warranty information is available for review on request; for catalog and mail-order sales: the warranty text must appear in the catalog adjacent to the product description, or the seller must provide a toll-free number or address where consumers can request the terms before ordering
  • § 702.3(b) — Warrantor duties: warrantors must (1) provide sellers with copies of warranty materials to enable compliance with § 702.3(a); (2) include the warranty text on or within the product packaging in a manner that allows inspection before purchase, or provide the text electronically if the seller has agreed to use that delivery method; for products sold online, displaying warranty terms on the product listing page satisfies pre-sale availability

  The pre-sale availability rule solves a specific consumer protection problem: warranty terms were commonly hidden inside product packaging that couldn't be opened until after purchase — making it impossible to compare warranty coverage across competing products before buying. The rule doesn't require a specific format, but the warranty must be genuinely available for examination, not just theoretically accessible. The FTC enforces the pre-sale availability requirements as separate violations from the warranty content requirements of Part 701; retailers who fail to make warranties available on request are violating FTC regulations even if the warranty itself is properly written.

• 16 CFR Part 703 — Informal Dispute Settlement Procedures: when a warrantor's written warranty incorporates a dispute resolution mechanism as a condition of or step prior to a consumer's right to sue, that mechanism must comply with 16 CFR Part 703 (implementing 15 U.S.C. § 2310(a)). These are the rules governing lemon law arbitration programs, automotive manufacturer dispute resolution hotlines, and similar warrantor-run resolution processes:

  • § 703.2 — Warrantor duties: a warrantor may not incorporate a non-compliant mechanism into warranty terms; the mechanism must be available at no charge to the consumer; a consumer who elects to use the mechanism preserves their right to sue if dissatisfied with the outcome
  • § 703.3 — Mechanism organization: the mechanism must be funded and staffed at a level ensuring fair and expeditious resolution; if the mechanism is operated by a third party (e.g., an industry trade association or independent arbitration provider), the warrantor and sponsor must be organizationally separated to prevent the appearance of bias; the mechanism cannot charge consumers any fee
  • § 703.4 — Decision-maker qualifications: no one deciding a dispute may be (a) a party to the dispute or employee/agent of a party, or (b) a person who may become a party in related legal action (including class actions); decision-makers must be free from actual or apparent conflict of interest with the warrantor
  • § 703.5 — Operation requirements: the mechanism must have written procedures; must notify the consumer within 10 working days of receiving a dispute whether it will handle the claim; must resolve disputes within 40 days of receiving the consumer's initial notice; must allow both parties to submit any materials they deem relevant; the consumer may request a hearing; the mechanism must issue a written decision stating the reasons
  • § 703.6 — Recordkeeping: detailed records must be maintained for each dispute — consumer and warrantor contact information, product description, claim nature, all submissions, decision date, decision and reasons, and warrantor compliance status; statistical summaries must be compiled and made public annually
  • § 703.7 — Annual audits: the mechanism must be audited at least annually for compliance with Part 703; audit results must be available to the FTC and to any person upon request

  Part 703 matters because Magnuson-Moss allows warrantors to require consumers to use an informal dispute mechanism before suing — but only if that mechanism meets the FTC's fairness standards. The practical effect is that major automotive manufacturers (Ford, GM, Toyota, Honda, and others) operate FTC-compliant arbitration programs (often administered by BBB National Programs, NCDS, or similar neutral providers) that must comply with the 40-day resolution timeline, independence requirements, and annual audit mandates. A consumer who goes through a compliant program and is dissatisfied with the outcome may still sue in court — the mechanism is not binding arbitration. If the warrantor's program fails to comply with Part 703, the consumer never needed to use it as a prerequisite to litigation.

Pending Legislation

No major standalone Magnuson-Moss reform bills pending in the 119th Congress.

Recent Developments

• FTC has issued enforcement guidance supporting the right to repair, citing Magnuson-Moss's anti-tying provision
• "Warranty void if opened" stickers have been targeted by FTC as potentially deceptive and violative of Magnuson-Moss
• The right-to-repair movement has brought renewed attention to the tie-in prohibition as manufacturers restrict independent repair
• Digital products and software warranties raise new Magnuson-Moss questions — does the Act cover software, subscriptions, and digital services?
• Class action litigation under Magnuson-Moss continues to be significant, particularly for automotive defects and electronics