[HN Gopher] FTC action against Harley-Davidson and Westinghouse ... ___________________________________________________________________ FTC action against Harley-Davidson and Westinghouse for limiting right to repair Author : sinak Score : 189 points Date : 2022-06-23 19:26 UTC (3 hours ago) (HTM) web link (www.ftc.gov) (TXT) w3m dump (www.ftc.gov) | fragmede wrote: | Fascinating. I wonder why those two companies got singled out | from all the rest of them. | pilgrimfff wrote: | Insufficient political campaign contributions, probably. | rasz wrote: | Apple turn was in 2018 https://www.ftc.gov/business- | guidance/blog/2018/04/ftc-staff... not that anyone enforced it | after the warning - apple still refuses warranty after you | replace screen or battery with third party. | parineum wrote: | I imagine it's because they view those as most winnable. | Probably a combination of egregiousness and strength of defense | (money). I have to hope that winning this case sets precedent | for future cases against larger entities. | citilife wrote: | When are we going to discuss tractors (speaking to the FTC)? The | fact I can't even change some settings such as the gear shifting | speed without a technician is insane. | caboteria wrote: | Well, the article mentions Harley-Davidson, which some claim | makes 2-wheeled tractors. | joshspankit wrote: | John Deere is a consistent (imposing) presence in almost all | discussions of right to repair simply because they understand | the power we people have: Once right to repair is established | in law and public opinion, nothing they can do will stop | farmers from being able to work on their own tractors. | mulmen wrote: | I paid for books (and beer) in college with a summer farm | job. I did equipment maintenance and drove trucks. We ran | John Deere 6602 combines from the mid 1970s. This was in the | late 2000s. | | They were an absolute dream to work on. Everything was | straightforward and consistent. The assembly was well thought | out to enable in the field repairs. In my mind at the time | John Deere was a brand that understood the needs of farmers. | | I can't reconcile their current position on right to repair | with my experience. Something clearly changed between the | 1970s and today. | [deleted] | Hellbanevil wrote: | zdragnar wrote: | My grandfather and his brother (sons of poor immegrants) | traveled halfway across the country in their youth with | nothing but a motorbike and some tools. They stopped at a | farm each night and worked out a deal to do some equipment | repair work in exchange for food and a place to sleep. | | Those days are long gone. Fewer small family farms, fewer | friendly and trusting people, fewer simple things for | mechanically minded handy men to fix. | | There's a lot of good things progress brings us, though it | is often interesting to ponder on what we have lost. | MisterTea wrote: | > fewer friendly and trusting people, | | I honestly blame film/TV and other modern media for | implanting anxieties in people via a combination of | sensationalist news reports on gruesome crimes and the | horror genre which seem to form a feedback loop of | mistrust. Before that people had to go out of their way | to hear of such grizzly tales in books or newspapers (if | they could even read) so most lived in ignorant bliss, | unaware of the potential violence lurking in every corner | of humanity. Maybe I'm wrong but I'd just like to know | when ans why it was we lost out innocence as a society. | zdragnar wrote: | Sadly, I never got a chance to ask him about it, though I | imagine he probably would have had a few stories of | inhospitable hosts or people who wanted nothing to do | with them as they came through. | | Nowadays, people tend to have more worth stealing - | including your identity if you happen to have documents | in an easily accessible area of your home. Back then, | though, there wouldn't have been much worth taking from a | small family farm- no TV, cell phones, electronics other | than a radio and light fixtures for the most part (this | would have been in the 1930's or 40's, I forget which). | | One last stay thought: hospitality and community in | general were much more central to people's way of life in | rural farming communities then- farmers would help each | other out with planting and harvesting, share equipment, | every person in the community went to the same or one of | two churches, etc. People had to rely on each other just | to survive. | daniel-cussen wrote: | Man different CEO, they got the sales (wrong word in this | case, see my other comment about selling) in charge of the | company. Clearly. I highly doubt John Deere--the man named | John, last name Deere, the actual living breathing human-- | would have stood behind like tractor on a cloud. | | Tractors on the cloud. | | Castles in the sky. | snarf21 wrote: | Sure you can. They don't care about farmers because farmers | are a smaller percentage of their business each year. When | Private Equity buys all the mega-farms, they won't care | about having to rent tractors from JD. Actually, they would | prefer it because you can CapEx a maintenance contract | instead of putting it on OpEx. It does mean that there will | be an ever growing opportunity for a smaller tractor | company that actually does care about farmers but JD knows | where their bread is buttered and they don't care about the | little guy. | thrdbndndn wrote: | Why are we making a distinction between (indie) farmers | and mega-farms? | | They are all farmers, do the farmers' thing. And the | latter is more efficient. It makes sense (and IMO is | better) for a tractor company to cater for the latter. | adolph wrote: | That seems a kinda conspiratorial stretch for a phenomena | that has a simpler possible explanation: they see | maintenance as a growing revenue source. | salawat wrote: | It's not conspiratorial at all. After a certain size, and | upon getting a CFO that'll actually pay attention to | things like that, this is a 100% incentivized way of | doing things. | | It's not conspiratorial in the mustache twirling sense, | but it is 100% an unambiguously desired outcome of how | our tax laws and accounting principles are currently | structured. | | A system is perfectly tuned to generate the outcomes it | does. If you don't like those outcomes, you have to | change the system. | 0des wrote: | To be a fly on the wall at John Deere right now.. | trash3 wrote: | Laughing and clinking drinks. Look at their stock past five | years. They're a monopoly. | VBprogrammer wrote: | In which way are they a monopoly? Is that US specific? In the | UK/EU there are at least half a dozen different tractor | brands which I could name, all of them with significant | market share. | 0des wrote: | John Deere limits your options with regard to repair. It's | not so much a monopoly as it is anticompetitive | nomel wrote: | I don't think a brand being fashionable, to a middle aged | demographic, makes them a monopoly. They're just popular. | There are plenty of other similar bikes that can be bought. | | edit: I'm an idiot. I read the comment as being about Harley | Davidson. | 10u152 wrote: | John Deere doesn't make bikes. They make tractors and farm | equipment. | nomel wrote: | My bad. I just realized I read the comment as Harley | Davidson rather than John Deere. | WheatM wrote: | Overtonwindow wrote: | John Deere, Apple, Sony... all of them. To a larger point with | miniaturization, however, surely there is a point where third | party repair might be very difficult, if not impossible. | Avenger42 wrote: | Apple recently* announced their self-service repair: | | https://www.apple.com/newsroom/2022/04/apples-self- | service-r... | | Possibly this was just to head off this kind of enforcement | aimed their way. | threeseed wrote: | I think it's more to do with the overall company strategy. | | As phones have matured as a product people have stopped | buying them at the same pace as in early years. And so to | counteract this Apple has gone heavily into services, | accessories etc. | | So just as Apple has increased OS support periods for | phones they are much happier now for people to fix their | phone and stay in the ecosystem than switch to Android. | 0des wrote: | Modern Lexus cars appear to be going this way too. It's | nothing but a bunch of shenanigans and plastic under the hood | now. | joshspankit wrote: | Only at the point at which they themselves cannot repair it. | | If one human can repair it, so can other humans. They can | argue "safety" all day but there is nothing magical about | certification. | threeseed wrote: | > If one human can repair it, so can other humans | | Not all humans are created equal. | | Repairing a mechanical watch for example requires fine | motor skills, decent eyesight, impeccable patience etc. | | And modern day electronics are fast approaching that level | of complexity. | Schroedingersat wrote: | There is nothing about the use of microchips that forces | you to make the way in paper thin glass glued to the | case. We invented PCBs for a reason. | joshspankit wrote: | > Repairing a mechanical watch for example requires fine | motor skills, decent eyesight, impeccable patience etc. | | No. What I said was that certifying someone does not give | them magical abilities. | | Two people who have equal motor skills, eyesight, and | patience (etc) have equal ability to repair. The one | without official training just has to learn through | experience. | stjohnswarts wrote: | This was the obvious one, how could they miss it? Smells like | money & politics might be involved... | KennyBlanken wrote: | I bought a car from a guy who was a H-D dealer but privately, | rode everything but H-D and said the bikes were shit. | | Their V-twin design is not only a shit engine - but it generates | so much vibration that it literally shakes itself and everything | on the bike to death, causing stuff to fatigue/wear/rattle loose, | wiring to fray, you name it. | | H-D dealerships are cash cows between that and insane accessory | and clothing sales. They're basically Boomer cosplay stores. | WheatM wrote: | InCityDreams wrote: | >....a[n!] H-D dealer but privately, rode everything but H-D | and said the bikes were shit. | | And word didn't get around? Hmmmmmm...... | rootsudo wrote: | not really, high barrier of entry and one source of branded | material/license means it's totally dependent on HD, which, | very soon will go dealer hostile. | eweise wrote: | I had a sportster with the engine solidly mounted to the fame. | Drove it over 10,000 miles one summer. It was totally fine. | Nothing broke or rattled loose. | BenSahar wrote: | When did he sell Harleys? The 1970s? | | It's almost laughable to say that about most of their bikes | past the introduction of the Evolution in 1984. Their latest | engine is as about as smooth as a V-Twin can get. | Rumudiez wrote: | Far from smooth compared to the v-twins from Ducati which are | even at the same pricepoint. And if you said that to an older | HD rider, they would be offended! Some of them like the | rumble -- they like it quite a bit, actually | SoftTalker wrote: | Yeah, today they're just overpriced. | | The years under AMF ownership were bad quality-wise. | blobbers wrote: | Right to repair feels like it's a battle of who _owns_ a product | after it is bought. | | Everyone wanting to operate their business in the way SaaS or | subscription service is really annoying. | | Photoshop gets jealous of saas numbers so they put out the | creative cloud. Printer companies authenticate their ink | cartridges. Coffee makers only accept their own branded | cartridges. | | Right to repair, right to modify, it all comes down to ownership. | toss1 wrote: | EXACTLY | | If you don't want anyone else to work on your products, then | you need to only rent or lease them out. | | If you claim to "sell" the product to the customer, then THE | CUSTOMER OWNS IT, and should be able to do whatever T.F. they | want, including decompiling, reverse-engineering, breaking | locks or codes, etc.. The only thing they should not be able to | do is manufacture and resell copies of it. | | And, if you only lease/rent your product, you are responsible | for disposal at the end. | | Seems like a reasonable distinction and deal to make. | | Acting like you are selling something when you are really only | leasing it out, and withholding information and rights to the | object is dishonest. | | Just because it is profitable does not mean that it is right. | | This needs to be codified into law. | daniel-cussen wrote: | Yeah the word "sell" and "buy" is false advertising right | there, it's very ingrained that buying and selling imply | absolute ownership, all the way down to chattel slavery, | where "buy" and "sell" are insulting. Very very ingrained. | toomuchtodo wrote: | Tesla next please. | mynameisvlad wrote: | In case you didn't know you can now get free access to all the | service manuals via https://service.tesla.com. I'm guessing it | was a recent development to try and stave off such a suit. | [deleted] | [deleted] | travisporter wrote: | Friend has a 2020 model y with a clear balance issue. I | suggested firestone or a local tire shop but he's so scared | tesla will void his warranty he's waiting on them to service | it. I don't disagree - they probably are tracking exactly where | that vehicle is. | jsight wrote: | That's silly. Our mobile service tech happily recommended a | local shop when I asked who he uses. Some of the Tesla | service departments will encourage you to use local tire | shops for routine tire work, too, as it reduces the load on | them. | | A bigger issue is that some shops don't like to deal with the | risks of lifting a car with a battery. Poor lift procedures | can cost them a lot of money, and some avoid the liability. | Most have reported success with Discount Tire, Costco, and | other normal shops, though. | nxm wrote: | And Apple | jsight wrote: | As much as I would love for Tesla to offer high voltage parts | (motors, inverters, controllers, etc) to the public, I don't | think this ruling was intended to force the sale of parts to | third parties. | | I'm not aware of a case of Tesla ignoring Magnuson Moss to deny | a repair. | | Although the limiting of supercharging and other DCFC on | salvage vehicles has been a problem. I'd like to see something | done about that, but I'm not sure if there's a law that | applies. | toomuchtodo wrote: | I have no problem sourcing non restricted parts from Tesla | (except when they don't produce enough and backorders are | measured in months). They know me at the service counter, I | walk in, pickup my parts, and leave. They gave me a hard time | buying led projector headlights for my S to retrofit (because | the legacy OEM halogen running lights burn out all the damn | time and that gets old at $1k/pair) and they would not allow | me to order a PMSR motor (HV parts restricted as you | mentioned) to upgrade my S from legacy to Raven drivetrain (I | sourced those parts from a well known Tesla rebuilder on | /r/teslamotors). All above changes required I root the | vehicle, which is silly imho; the vehicle could've detected | the changes and updated vehicle state accordingly, versus | rooting and me running commands to do so (I opted out of | arbitration in the event I have to pursue legal remedies for | warranty coverage wrt MM). I think it's also be reasonable | that Tesla be required to provide me access to Garage | (Tesla's internal remote diag web tool) at a reasonable cost | using my Tesla credentials, charging the same CC they have on | file for Supercharging charges. | | You're right that it's unlikely legislation can force part | sales, and that secondary markets (salvage) will likely be | the solution until restricted parts are reverse engineered | and cloned in traditional fashion by the Chinese or similar | (although QC then becomes the challenge, I would be hesitant | to install a clone of the carbon fiber wrapped motor in the | Plaid lineup). Acquiring battery packs will likely always | require pleading your case to Tesla with a VIN and good | cause, because no one is building packs of that quality. | [deleted] | nazgulsenpai wrote: | > "Taking your product to be serviced by a repair shop that is | not affiliated with or an authorized dealer of [Company] will not | void this warranty. Also, using third-party parts will not void | this warranty." | | I do not own or plan to ever own a Harley Davidson or | Westinghouse product. I understand and 100% agree with the right | to repair parts. The second part, however, I have a few concerns. | So, if I buy a cheap replica part from eBay and put it into my | Harley Davidson, it causes other problems with the engine and | then I make a warranty claim, they have to honor it? | post_break wrote: | "According to the Magnuson-Moss Act, a vehicle manufacturer | cannot automatically cancel your warranty just because you've | installed aftermarket car parts. This is an illegal practice. | That said, if your aftermarket part somehow causes or | contributes to a failure in your vehicle, the dealer may be | able to deny your warranty claim--as long as they can prove the | connection. In these cases, the burden of proof is entirely on | the dealership." | | If your cheap replica part causes issues to the thing you're | trying to warranty then yes. If you replace the headlights with | crappy clones from ebay, and Chevy says your warranty is void | on your transmission, no. | nazgulsenpai wrote: | That makes sense. Thanks for clarifying. | infogulch wrote: | Totally valid question that prompted a great answer. Thank | you! | | For some context, the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act [1] | mentioned above was made a law in 1975. This action by the | FTC is basically calling HD and WH out on their | noncompliance with this law, and more generally announcing | their intention to enforce it more boadly. It's unfortunate | that the FTC has allowed this lawbreaking behavior run | rampant for decades, but I'm glad that they've gotten off | their laurels and are finally moving on it now. | | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnuson%E2%80%93Moss_Warrant | y... | rasz wrote: | I take it you only use OEM Ford fuel in your car, because third | party could cause 'other problems with the engine'? | | The onus is on warrantor to prove third party components caused | damage. | d23 wrote: | I don't think people should downvote comments like these. It | started a good discussion. | throwaway23234 wrote: | I think most of the comment was just fine. The second phrase | of the first sentence (not planning on ever owning) probably | pissed people off and didn't add to the discussion. It's ok | to not want products from companies. But it's mostly | inflammatory to reduce the entirety of a company to a weird | clause written in the warranty that was just some lawyer | thing. | | That all being said, it's the top comment at this point | nazgulsenpai wrote: | I was trying to get across that I'm neutral or I don't have | a vested interest in either company. I certainly could have | phrased it better. | dundarious wrote: | I think that was just them stating their priors, and it | wasn't a consequence of the logic of their post. | samaman wrote: | And not tesla, seriously? | jsight wrote: | Does Tesla void the warranty if parts are replaced with third | party ones and those third party parts are unrelated to the | failure? | yakz wrote: | Tesla has other levers they can pull if they have a bone to | pick. Supercharger network access can be revoked. | squarefoot wrote: | Long gone are the days when "custom motorcycle", a term generally | associated with HD and similar styles, would imply "I can repair | this by myself, heck, even modify it with spare parts taken from | a demolished truck". ___________________________________________________________________ (page generated 2022-06-23 23:00 UTC)