2123140 

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

HARLEY-DAVIDSON MOTOR COMPANY 

GROUP, LLC, a limited liability company. 

DOCKET NO. 

COMPLAINT

The Federal Trade Commission, having reason to believe that Harley-Davidson Motor 

Company Group, LLC, a limited liability company, has violated the provisions of the Federal 

Trade Commission Act, the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act (“Warranty Act”), 15 U.S.C. § 2301 

et seq., and the Rule Governing Disclosure of Written Consumer Product Warranty Terms and 

Conditions, 16 C.F.R. § 701, promulgated thereunder, and it appearing to the Commission that 

this proceeding is in the public interest, alleges: 

1. Respondent Harley-Davidson Motor Company Group, LLC (“Harley-Davidson” or

“Respondent”) is a Wisconsin limited liability company with its principal office or place of

business at 3700 West Juneau Avenue, Milwaukee, Wisconsin 53208.

2. Respondent has manufactured, advertised, offered for sale, sold, and distributed HarleyDavidson motorcycles, parts, accessories, and 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 Harley-Davidson motorcycles a limited written warranty

(“warranty”), which is described in its owner manual and constitutes a “written warranty” as

defined by the Warranty Act, 15 U.S.C. § 2301(6).
2

5. The length of the warranty offered by Respondent is twenty-four months, “starting from 

the earlier of (a) the date of the initial retail purchase and delivery of the motorcycle from an 

authorized Harley-Davidson dealer; or (b) the third anniversary of the last day of the model year 

of the motorcycle.”

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

genuine Harley-Davidson parts and accessories.

7. For example, Respondent’s 2021 warranty states that “Genuine Harley-Davidson parts 

are engineered and tested specifically for use on your motorcycle. Insist that your authorized 

Harley-Davidson dealer uses only genuine Harley-Davidson replacement parts and accessories to 

keep your Harley-Davidson motorcycle and its limited warranty intact.” 

8. The 2021 warranty also states that “This limited warranty will not apply to any

motorcycle ... 1. Which has not been operated or maintained as specified in the owner’s manual. 

... 4. Which has off-road or competition parts installed to enhance performance, a trailer hitch, or 

has other unapproved modifications (even if these modifications include genuine HarleyDavidson parts and accessories that are not approved for use on your motorcycle). These

modifications may void all or parts of your new motorcycle limited warranty. See an authorized 

Harley-Davidson dealer for details.” 

9. Respondent’s 2021 warranty states that the “[u]se of aftermarket performance parts may 

void all or parts of your limited warranty. See an authorized Harley-Davidson dealer for details”

and that “the use of parts and service procedures other than Harley-Davidson approved parts and 

service procedures may void the limited warranty.”

10. Respondent has not provided genuine Harley-Davidson replacement parts 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 

Harley-Davidson parts and accessories.

11. Respondent also fails to fully set forth in its warranty what is covered by or excluded 

from the warranty. Instead, as described in paragraphs 8-9, the warranty directs the owner to 

check with a local Harley-Davidson dealer to fully understand the warranty’s coverage. In 

addition, the 2021 warranty states that “[s]ome countries, states or other locations may require all 

regular maintenance and service work to be done by an authorized Harley-Davidson dealer for 

your warranty to remain in effect. Check with your local Harley-Davidson dealer for local 

requirements.”

MAGNUSON-MOSS WARRANTY ACT AND REGULATIONS THEREUNDER

12. 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 
3

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

competition in the marketing of consumer products. 

13. 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.

14. 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).

15. The Rule Governing Disclosure of Written Consumer Product Warranty Terms and 

Conditions, 16 C.F.R. § 701, (“the Disclosure Rule”) states that, for products costing more than 

$15, a “warranty needs to disclose, clearly and conspicuously in a single document in simple and 

readily understood language. . . (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.” 16 C.F.R. § 701.3(a)(2). The Disclosure Rule was enacted 

pursuant to the Warranty Act. See 15 U.S.C. § 2302.

16. 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

17. 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). 

18. 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.

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. The acts or practices of the Respondent, as described in Paragraphs 17-19, violate Section 

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

45(a)(1).
4 

Count II 

Deceptive Conduct in Violation of the Federal Trade Commission Act

21. 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 HarleyDavidson parts and accessories that were not provided to the consumer free of charge under the

warranty.

22. 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).

23. 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.

24. Therefore, the representation set forth in Paragraph 21 is false or misleading.

25. The acts and practices of Respondent as alleged in Paragraphs 21-24 constitute unfair or

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

Count III

Failure to Clearly Describe All Warranty Terms in a Single Document in Violation of the 

Disclosure Rule

26. Respondent, a warrantor, failed to include, for a product that actually cost consumers

more than $15, all warranty terms in a single document that contains a clear description and

identification of products, parts, characteristics, components, or properties covered by and, where

necessary for clarification, excluded from the warranty, as required by the Disclosure Rule, 16

C.F.R. § 701.3(a)(2).

27. The acts or practices of the Respondent, as described in Paragraph 26, violate Section

701.3(a)(2) of the Disclosure Rule, and Section 5 of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. § 45(a)(1).

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

issued this Complaint against Respondent. 

By the Commission.

April J. Tabor 

Secretary

SEAL: