Rock Sliders, Other After-Market Parts, & Vehicle Warranty

I called the local Toyota dealership this morning and spoke with its service manager as to whether the installation of rock sliders, weld or bolt on, voids the warranty on the frame or the car itself. He quickly responded with a "no it does not." He indicated that regardless of whether they're welded on or bolted on, rock sliders will not void the warranty unless I claim warranty protection specifically for a defect caused by the sliders -- e.g., rusting at the drilled holes and bolt connection points, or a damaged frame caused by the installation process etc...

I then did some reading on the Magnuson Moss Act. Recently the FTC issued an opinion letter concerning new vehicle warranty protection and use of after-market parts and third party shops. The link is here (what follows below is language cut and pasted from the article covering that opinion letter).

http://www.sema.org/sema-enews/2011/01/ftc-validates-right-to-install-aftermarket-parts

"In a Consumer Alert issued by the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), the agency confirmed that “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 part.” The alert outlines key provisions in the law that provides protections to car owners. As defined by the FTC, an “aftermarket' part is a part made by a company other than the vehicle manufacturer or the original equipment manufacturer.”

“The FTC’s reference to aftermarket parts is equally applicable to specialty parts,” said Russ Deane, SEMA’s General Counsel.
The alert notes that a consumer has the right to patronize independent retail stores and repair shops for parts and service without fear of voiding the new car warranty. The dealer/vehicle manufacturer has the right to deny a warranty repair but they must demonstrate that the aftermarket part caused the problem. The warranty remains in effect for all other covered parts."

The FTC alert may be downloaded using this link: www.ftc.gov/bcp/edu/pubs/consumer/alerts/alt192.shtm.

 

I'm not sure if this was posted in the correct forum -- I'm still a greenhorn in this place. Perhaps a mod could move it to the correct one if necessary. Thanks.

 

Forgiven
Most of the mods that void warranties are electrical and custom fabrication work on suspension....usually.

 

Welcome to TW. Yeah, this has been a huge discussion all over the forum. M-MA is the best defense for dealerships that try to blanket-void a warranty just because you did something to your truck.

 

Get him to put that into writing on Toyota letterhead.

Talk is cheap these days.

 

Good info to know! Definitely keeping this on hand.

 

I suggest reading this as well.

http://www.tundraheadquarters.com/blog/after-market-accessories-new-warranty/

 

It appears that getting the dealerships statement in writing is unnecessary. The Magnuson Moss Warranty Act is the only writing we need.

 

Tell that to the two local guys I know who had to take Toyota to court after poor mediation results.

If you want to pay for a lawyer to fight for you go ahead.

If you want to cover the bases yourself - get it in writing.

 

You can try to get it in writing ahead of time if you want, or you can simply operate according to existing law, like most of us do on a daily basis. We don't walk around asking people to sign forms agreeing to act according to the law.

 

I tried to find appellate court cases involving a dealer or manufacturer denying warranty protection based on modifications. I limited the search to those cases tried after the consumer-friendly amendments to the Magnuson Moss Act. All I could find is a case involving a buyer who learned, after purchase, that his car, which was bought used but within the warranty period, had been modified by the first owner. Rather than the dealer arguing that modification voided the warranty, in this case the buyer argued, unsuccessfully, that the dealership was required to accept a return of the vehicle and issue a full refund, alleging the modifications were a material defect of which he should have been informed. The buyer, not the dealer, argued that the modifications rendered the warranty null and void. The court disagreed and cited the Magnuson Moss Act. Otherwise, the lack of state cases that made it to appeal thus far suggests to me that dealerships and the manufacturer will relent if they're summoned into court knowing that, pursuant to the Act, they have the burden to prove the defect was caused by the after-market part or modification, and everyone in TW is capable of pursuing a claim in conciliation/small claims court.