16 C.F.R. § 700.10

Prohibited tying

Read at: eCFRecfr.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov CasesGoogle Scholar

(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 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. A warrantor or his designated representative may not provide parts under the warranty in a manner which impedes or precludes the choice by the consumer of the person or business to perform necessary labor to install such 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.

[42 FR 36114, July 13, 1977, as amended at 80 FR 42721, July 20, 2015]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 11 cases (8 in the last 5 years), 1983–2025 · leading case: Mcgarvey v. Penske Auto. Grp., Inc., 639 F. Supp. 2d 450 (D.N.J. 2009).
Mcgarvey v. Penske Auto. Grp., Inc., 639 F. Supp. 2d 450 (D.N.J. 2009). · cites it 11× “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 16…”
Auto. Parts Rebuilders Ass'n v. Env't Prot. Agency, 720 F.2d 142 (D.C. Cir. 1983). “34836 (May 22, 1980), JA 416 (discussing different *395 degrees of information a manufacturer might be required to submit); 16 C.F.R. § 700.10 (c) (1982) (under Magnuson-Moss Act warrantor can deny warranty claim if he can demonstrate that the defect or damage was caused by an…”
Sharon McGarvey v. Penske Auto Grp., 486 F. App'x 276 (3rd Cir. 2012). “16 C.F.R. § 700.10 (b). However, the FTC’s subsequent Opinion Letter suggests that in certain cases where the war-rantor pays a portion of the labor cost under the warranty, it may specify the labor service to be used.”
Edward Heymer v. Harley-Davidson Motor Co. Grp., LLC (7th Cir. 2025). · cites it 4× “” 16 C.F.R. § 700.10 (c). 1 But it does not prevent a warrantor from excluding warranty cov- erage for defects or damage caused by using unauthorized parts or services.”
Edward Heymer v. Harley-Davidson Motor Co. Grp., LLC (7th Cir. 2025). · cites it 4× “” 16 C.F.R. § 700.10 (c). 1 But it does not prevent a warrantor from excluding warranty cov- erage for defects or damage caused by using unauthorized parts or services.”
Corn v. Target Corp. (N.D. Ill. 2023). “at ¶ 36]; see 16 C.F.R. § 700.10 (c). Plaintiff does not state whether he asked to see the simplehuman warranty before purchasing the trash can or whether he attempted to look it up online.”
Shaughnessy v. Nespresso USA, Inc. (S.D.N.Y. 2023). “” 16 C.F.R. § 700.10 (c). That is precisely what Nespresso has done here.”
Franzini v. Bissell Homecare, Inc. (E.D.N.Y 2024). “§ 2302 (c), and the implementing regulation of that provision, 16 C.F.R. § 700.10 , by conditioning the Device warranty on using Bissell cleaning fluids, and (2) violated New York General Business Law (“GBL”) § 349 by falsely stating in the user guide that non-Bissell cleaning…”
Heymer v. Harley-Davidson Motor Co. Grp., LLC (E.D. Wis. 2024). “” 16 C.F.R. § 700.10 (c). It explains that “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…”
Lovett v. Beneteau Grp. Am., Inc. (Del. Super. Ct. 2025). “§ 2302 (c); see 16 C.F.R. § 700.10 . 75 15 U.S.C. § 2310 (d) (emphasis added).”
Groff v. Keurig Green Mountain, Inc. (9th Cir. 2025). “9 (2011); 16 C.F.R. § 700.10 (c). As a result, Groff had to allege actual reliance.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.