(a) Any warrantor warranting to a consumer by means of a written warranty a consumer product actually costing the consumer more than $15.00 shall clearly and conspicuously disclose in a single document in simple and readily understood language, the following items of information:
(1) The identity of the party or parties to whom the written warranty is extended, if the enforceability of the written warranty is limited to the original consumer purchaser or is otherwise limited to persons other than every consumer owner during the term of the warranty;
(2) A clear description and identification of products, or parts, or characteristics, or components or properties covered by and where necessary for clarification, excluded from the warranty;
(3) A statement of what the warrantor will do in the event of a defect, malfunction or failure to conform with the written warranty, including the items or services the warrantor will pay for or provide, and, where necessary for clarification, those which the warrantor will not pay for or provide;
(4) The point in time or event on which the warranty term commences, if different from the purchase date, and the time period or other measurement of warranty duration;
(5) A step-by-step explanation of the procedure which the consumer should follow in order to obtain performance of any warranty obligation, including the persons or class of persons authorized to perform warranty obligations. This includes the name(s) of the warrantor(s), together with: The mailing address(es) of the warrantor(s), and/or the name or title and the address of any employee or department of the warrantor responsible for the performance of warranty obligations, and/or a telephone number which consumers may use without charge to obtain information on warranty performance;
(6) Information respecting the availability of any informal dispute settlement mechanism elected by the warrantor in compliance with part 703 of this subchapter;
(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.(8) Any exclusions of or limitations on relief such as incidental or consequential damages, accompanied by the following statement, which may be combined with the statement required in paragraph (a)(7) of this section:
Some States do not allow the exclusion or limitation of incidental or consequential damages, so the above limitation or exclusion may not apply to you.(9) A statement in the following language:
This warranty gives you specific legal rights, and you may also have other rights which vary from State to State.(b) Paragraphs (a) (1) through (9) of this section shall not be applicable with respect to statements of general policy on emblems, seals or insignias issued by third parties promising replacement or refund if a consumer product is defective, which statements contain no representation or assurance of the quality or performance characteristics of the product; Provided That: (1) The disclosures required by paragraphs (a) (1) through (9) of this section are published by such third parties in each issue of a publication with a general circulation, and (2) such disclosures are provided free of charge to any consumer upon written request.
[40 FR 60188, Dec. 31, 1975, as amended at 80 FR 42722, July 20, 2015]
Notes of Decisions
Loretta Gayle Galea v. Fca US LLC, 917 N.W.2d 694 (Mich. Ct. App. 2018).
· cites it 13× “But Galea also maintains that by failing to mention arbitration, her warranty violated the single- document rule embodied in 16 CFR 701.3, a Federal Trade Commission (FTC) regulation implementing the MMWA.”
Bailey v. Monaco Coach Corp., 350 F. Supp. 2d 1036 (N.D. Ga. 2004).
· cites it 4× “” 16 C.F.R. § 701.3 (a). In order to prevent consumer misunderstanding, the single document rule codified by the Federal Trade Commission specifies nine mandatory disclosures.”
Cunningham v. Fleetwood Homes of Georgia, Inc., 253 F.3d 611 (11th Cir. 2001).
· cites it 3× “The Cun-ninghams also submit that the absence of language in the warranty referencing the arbitration agreement is itself a violation of the Act, as Magnuson-Moss and the Federal Trade Commission regulations require full and conspicuous disclosure of the terms and conditions of…”
Ex Parte Thicklin, 824 So. 2d 723 (Ala. 2002).
· cites it 2× “" 16 C.F.R. § 701.3 (a)(3); "[a] stepby-step explanation of the procedure which the consumer should follow in order to obtain performance of any warranty obligation.”
Patriot Mfg., Inc. v. Dixon, 399 F. Supp. 2d 1298 (S.D. Ala. 2005).
· cites it 4× “16 C.F.R. § 701.3 (a). This requirement is known as the “single document rule.”
In re Rust-Oleum Restore Mktg., Sales Practices & Prods. Liab. Litig., 155 F. Supp. 3d 772 (N.D. Ill. 2016).
“15, 2008) (finding the owner’s manual limitations did not violate MMWA regulation, 16 C.F.R. § 701.3 , as inconspicuous where the limitations were printed in bold face, all-caps type, and “clearly worded and conspicuous on the page”).”
In Re Apple & AT & TM Antitrust Litig., 596 F. Supp. 2d 1288 (N.D. Cal. 2008).
· cites it 2× “Plaintiffs’ primary allegation in support of their claim under § 2302(a) is that Defendants did not “fully and conspicuously disclos[e] that they would not honor the warranty as to iPhone that were damaged and destroyed by Apple’s Version 1.”
DaimlerChrysler Corp. v. Matthews, 848 A.2d 577 (Del. Ch. 2004).
· cites it 5× “31 Implementing § 2302(a), 32 the FTC enacted the “one-document rule” in 16 C.F.R. § 701.3 , which provides: *585 (a) Any warrantor warranting to a consumer by means of a written warranty a consumer product actually costing the consumer more than $15.”
Tietsworth v. Sears, 720 F. Supp. 2d 1123 (N.D. Cal. 2010).
“The court in that case denied summary adjudication of a claim alleging that defendant’s written warranty did not fully and conspicuously disclose all of the information required by 16 C.F.R. § 701.3 (a). Id. However, Turunen and Section 701.”
Chaurasia v. Gen. Motors Corp., 126 P.3d 165 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2006).
“Moreover, Chaurasia never claimed that GM violated the MMWA by failing to comply with warranty disclosure regulations ( 16 C.F.R. § 701.3 ), warranty labeling requirements ( 15 U.”
Fed. Trade Comm'n v. Virginia Homes Mfg. Corp., 509 F. Supp. 51 (D. Maryland 1981).
· cites it 3× “3) 16 C.F.R. § 701.3 (a)(5) requires that a warranty contain a “step-by-step explanation” of the procedure which a consumer should follow in order to obtain performance of a warranty obligation.”
Nancy Kuns v. Ford Motor Co., 543 F. App'x 572 (6th Cir. 2013).
“Kuns points to regulations promulgated under the MMWA, specifically 16 C.F.R. § 701.3 , which require warrantors to identify the “components covered by[,] and where necessary for clarification, excluded from the warranty.”
— 16 C.F.R. § 701.3(6) — 4 cases
Loretta Gayle Galea v. Fca US LLC, 917 N.W.2d 694 (Mich. Ct. App. 2018).
“But Galea also maintains that by failing to mention arbitration, her warranty violated the single- document rule embodied in 16 CFR 701.3, a Federal Trade Commission (FTC) regulation implementing the MMWA.”
— 16 C.F.R. § 701.3(a) — 4 cases
Loretta Gayle Galea v. Fca US LLC, 917 N.W.2d 694 (Mich. Ct. App. 2018).
“But Galea also maintains that by failing to mention arbitration, her warranty violated the single- document rule embodied in 16 CFR 701.3, a Federal Trade Commission (FTC) regulation implementing the MMWA.”
— 16 C.F.R. § 701.3(a)(1) — 1 case
— 16 C.F.R. § 701.3(a)(6) — 2 cases
Loretta Gayle Galea v. Fca US LLC, 917 N.W.2d 694 (Mich. Ct. App. 2018).
“But Galea also maintains that by failing to mention arbitration, her warranty violated the single- document rule embodied in 16 CFR 701.3, a Federal Trade Commission (FTC) regulation implementing the MMWA.”
— 16 C.F.R. § 701.3(a)(8) — 1 case
— 16 C.F.R. § 701.3(a)(l) — 1 case
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.