2223012 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

BEFORE THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION

COMMISSIONERS: Lina M. Khan, Chair 

Noah Joshua Phillips 

Rebecca Kelly Slaughter 

Christine S. Wilson

Alvaro M. Bedoya 

In the Matter of

MWE Investments, LLC, a limited liability 

company. 

DOCKET NO. 

COMPLAINT

The Federal Trade Commission, having reason to believe that MWE Investments, LLC, a 

limited liability company, has violated the provisions of the Federal Trade Commission Act, and

the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act (“Warranty Act”), 15 U.S.C. § 2301 et seq., and it appearing 

to the Commission that this proceeding is in the public interest, alleges:

1. Respondent MWE Investments, LLC, a manufacturer and licensor of the Westinghouse

brand mark for use on outdoor power equipment (“MWE Investments,” “Westinghouse,” or

“Respondent”) is an Ohio limited liability company, with its principal office or place of business

at 777 Manor Park Drive, Columbus, Ohio 43228.

2. Respondent has manufactured, advertised, offered for sale, sold, and distributed

generators and generator parts and accessories, as well as other products, to consumers

throughout the United States.

3. The acts and practices of Respondent alleged in this Complaint have been in or affecting

commerce, as “commerce” is defined in Section 4 of the Federal Trade Commission Act.

Respondent’s Business Activities 

4. Respondent offers purchasers of its portable generators a limited written warranty

(“warranty”), which constitutes a “written warranty” as defined by the Warranty Act, 15 U.S.C.

§ 2301(6).

5. The warranty covers repair expenses (parts and labor) for one year from the date of

purchase, and replacement parts for three years from the date of purchase.
2

6. Respondent, through its written warranty, conditions warranty coverage on the use of 

genuine MWE Investments parts and accessories.

7. For example, Respondent’s warranty states that “exclusions” under the warranty include 

“MWE Investments, LLC portable generators that utilize non-MWE Investments, LLC 

replacement parts” and “products that are altered or modified in a manner not authorized in 

writing by MWE Investments, LLC.” 

8. Respondent has not provided genuine MWE Investments parts or accessories to 

consumers without charge under the warranty. Respondent also did not seek a waiver from the 

Federal Trade Commission that would permit it to condition warranty coverage on the use of 

genuine MWE Investments parts and accessories.

MAGNUSON-MOSS WARRANTY ACT 

9. The FTC enforces the Warranty Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 2301-2312, which regulates consumer 

warranties and the procedures used to resolve warranty disputes. The broad purposes of the 

Warranty Act are: (1) to improve the adequacy of warranty information available to consumers, 

and thereby facilitate consumer choice; (2) to prevent deception; and (3) to improve competition 

in the marketing of consumer products. 

10. Among other things, the Warranty Act prohibits a warrantor from conditioning a 

warranty for a consumer product that costs more than $5 on the consumer’s use of an article or a 

service (other than an article or a service provided without charge) which is identified by brand, 

trade, or corporate name, unless the warrantor applies for and receives a waiver from the 

Commission (the “Tying Prohibition”). 15 U.S.C. § 2302(c); see also 16 C.F.R. § 700.10.

11. A “warrantor” is defined by the Warranty Act as “a supplier or other person who gives or 

offers to give a written warranty or who is or may be obligated under an implied warranty.” 15 

U.S.C. § 2301(5); see also 16 C.F.R. § 701.1(h).

12. Pursuant to Section 2310(b) of the Warranty Act, 15 U.S.C. § 2310(b), a violation of the 

Warranty Act, or a rule thereunder, constitutes a violation of Section 5(a)(1) of the Federal Trade 

Commission Act, 15 U.S.C. § 45(a)(1) (“FTC Act”).

Count I

Violations of the Tying Prohibition of The Warranty Act

13. Respondent gives, offers, has given and has offered written warranties, and is therefore a 

warrantor as that term is defined in the Warranty Act, 16 U.S.C. § 2301(5). 

14. In numerous instances, Respondent has conditioned a warranty for consumer products 

costing more than $5 on the consumer using, in connection with the warranted product, an article 

or service identified by brand, trade, or corporate name that was not provided to the consumer 

without charge under the terms of the warranty.
3

15. Respondent has never received, or even sought, a waiver from the Federal Trade 

Commission to excuse it from complying with Section 2302(c) of the Warranty Act. 

16. The acts or practices of the Respondent, as described in Paragraphs 13-15, violate Section 

2302(b) of the Warranty Act, 15 U.S.C. § 2302(c), and Section 5 of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. § 

45(a)(1).

Count II

Deceptive Conduct in Violation of the Federal Trade Commission Act

17. In numerous instances, Respondent, a warrantor, has represented, directly or indirectly, 

expressly or by implication, that the validity of its warranty for consumer products costing more 

than $5 is conditioned on the use, in connection with the warranted product, of genuine MWE 

Investments parts and accessories where such parts and accessories were not provided to the 

consumer free of charge under the warranty.

18. A warrantor cannot, as a matter of law, condition the validity of a warranty on the 

consumer’s use, in connection with the warranted product, of an article or service (other than an 

article or service provided without charge under the terms of the warranty) identified by brand, 

trade, or corporate name, unless it has received a waiver from the Federal Trade Commission. 

See 15 U.S.C. § 2302(c).

19. Respondent has never received, or even sought, a waiver from the Federal Trade 

Commission to excuse it from complying with Section 2302(c) of the Warranty Act.

20. Therefore, the representation set forth in Paragraph 17 is false or misleading.

21. The acts and practices of Respondent as alleged in Paragraphs 17-20 constitute unfair or 

deceptive acts or practices in or affecting commerce in violation of Section 5(a) of the FTC Act.

THEREFORE, the Federal Trade Commission this _______ day of _______, 20__, has 

issued this Complaint against Respondent.

By the Commission.

April J. Tabor

Secretary

SEAL: