Edward Heyer, et al. v. Harley-Davidson Motor Company Group, LLC, et al.

Milwaukee, Wisconsin consumer law lawyers represented the Plaintiff in a Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, 15 U.S.C. § 2301 et seq., violation and other state law theories.



Harley-Davidson offers customers a limited warranty when they purchase a new motorcycle.

Among other terms and conditions, Harley-Davidson limits warranty coverage when installed in the motorcycle. Edward Heymer and 14 other customers received this limited warranty when they purchased their motorcycles. Fearing that non-Harley-Davidson parts would void their warranties, they purchased higher-priced Harley-Davidson parts instead. They then sued, claiming the company's warranty practices violate multiple provisions of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, 15 U.S.C. § 2301 et seq., and various state antitrust laws by conditioning warranty coverage on the exclusive use of Harley-Davidson parts.



The Warranty Act imposes both disclosure and content obligations on warrantors. Heymer alleges that Harley-

Davidson's warranty violates the Warranty Act's anti-tying, disclosure, and pre-sale availability provisions. But the terms of the limited warranty do not create an express or implied tie, which is necessary to make out a claim under the

Warranty Act's anti-tying provision. Nor does the complaint plausibly allege a violation of the disclosure provision, as it fails to identify any standards or terms that were not fully disclosed in the text of the warranty itself. And, finally, the complaint's bare assertion that Harley-Davidson does not provide signs with warranty terms to dealers does not suffice to allege noncompliance with the pre-sale availability rule.

Dismissed



Affirmed