[US] VPS Provider's Guide to Federal Warranty Law (Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act)

[DomainBop]

Just throwing these helpful links out there in case any VPS provider gets the bright idea of guaranteeing their services with a "warranty" so they can familiarize themselves with all the provisions of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act

A Businessperson's Guide to Federal Warranty Law: http://www.business.ftc.gov/documents/bus01-businesspersons-guide-federal-warranty-law

Full text of the law: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/15/chapter-50

the tl;dr summary for those of you who like everything on one 1 page and hate pages even more than you hate paragraphs: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnuson%E2%80%93Moss_Warranty_Act

tl;dr of this post: "Warranty" isn't just a word you can throw into a press release for marketing purposes. Its use comes with a whole set of legal obligations.

 

[concerto49]

Virtual goods has a warranty? That's awesome. Don't see how it works.

 

[drmike]

Well educational:

"Warrantors cannot require that only branded parts be used with the product in order to retain the warranty. This is commonly referred to as the "tie-in sales" provisions, and is frequently mentioned in the context of third-party computer parts, such as memory and hard drives."

I still see companies pulling this.  Just had a vendor stirring the warranty pot for using non same brand components (disk and RAID).

So explain to me, in your opinion how many of these X days refund policies in hosting world might run afould of the Warranty Act?

Warranty has NEVER been a reason to issue a press release.  It is always part of a bigger bundle of legalese just to be compliant.

 

[DomainBop]

Virtual goods has a warranty? That's awesome. Don't see how it works.

Go check the WHT announcements section.

Virtual goods would probably be covered under the warranty law but the US law doesn't apply to services so it would be up to the court to decide if that dedicated server is a virtual good or a service. Adding a "warranty" to a contract is one of those times when you really need to cover your butt by picking the phone and calling your lawyers so they can look over your policy.

Just about every sale to a consumer though is covered by an implied warranty of merchantability (if the ad says xyz then you need to deliver xyz not abc)

 

[drmike]

Web hosting will meet the legal definition of a service and do so referencing the real estate case law covering leasing/renters almost certainly.  Rental of a home or apartment long ago (1950-1970 depending on locality) was said to be a contract for a basket of services (the physical space along with accessory facilities for services - water, sewage, electric, trash, etc.).  Prior to then common law was applied to renters and renters had little, if any rights even if the roof was raining on them, no hot water and varmint infestation.

Some stupid 16 year old throwing around dictionary words, Black's Law Dictionary words, randomly and without regard, yeah.  Someone should take the incorporator, the adult to task for such.

I read that announcement and I want to vomit in his shoes.

 

[DomainBop]

So explain to me, in your opinion how many of these X days refund policies in hosting world might run afould of the Warranty Act?

If the host can convince the court that it's a service (which they shouldn't have any problem doing unless it was RTO, etc) then the warranty act wouldn't apply but there are plenty of other laws someone could use to rip some of those "no refund" polcies to shreds...especially when a host is using their "no refund" policy to essentially rip off consumers by not delivering the service that was promised.

 

[William]

Again funny and strange US laws.... not surprised.