Brother Printer’s Warranty Restrictions Spawn Anti-Trust Suit
The personal printer maker ties its limited warranty to the use of its authorized repair - a violation of federal anti trust laws, according to the suit.
Spring is bringing a crop of class action lawsuits targeting illegal monopolies in the U.S. The latest target: Brother Industries, the Japan-based giant that makes desktop printers.
A complaint filed in U.S. District Court in New Jersey by a Massachusetts resident on behalf of Brother Printer owners alleges that the company illegally ties warranty service to use of its authorized repair providers - a violation of the Federal Magnuson Moss Warranty Act, alleging Brother is guilty of “unjust enrichment,” “fraud,” and “fraudulent omission.”
Deceptive Packaging Leads to Warranty Surprise
As described in the complaint (which you can read here), the plaintiff - a Mr. Konkel from the town of Fairhaven, Massachusetts, purchased a Brother All in One Printer from his local Staples office supply store. Shortly after the purchase, the printer began to slightly malfunction. Mr. Konkel “would have liked to endeavor to repair his product himself during the warranty period,” the complaint reads. But, upon close inspection of the materials that came with the device, he learned that Brother’s warranty - as written -prohibited him from doing so.
Had he known about that condition, the complaint says, Mr. Konkel would never have purchased the Brother device. However, he reviewed the Product’s packaging prior to purchase and - while it did mention that there was a limited warranty - there was no mention that the warranty was conditioned on use of Brother’s authorized service (which is illegal, in any case).
A Brother spokesperson said the company can not comment on pending litigation.
Public Information Supports Complaint
While the complaint does not name the model of Brother Printer Mr. Konkel purchased, it is described as a Color Inkjet All in One printer. It may have been similar to a device like the Brother MFC-J1205W, which is currently on sale at Staples.com for $109.99. The limited, 2-year warranty (PDF) for that model contains language identical to the language mentioned in the class action suit. Namely:
“This limited warranty is VOID if this Product has been altered or modified in any way, including but not limited to attempted warranty repair without authorization from Brother and/or alteration/removal of the serial number or rating plate.”
As the class action lawsuit makes clear: that’s illegal. The Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act prohibits companies from conditioning their warranties on a consumer’s use of any article or service (other than an article or service provided without charge under the terms of the warranty itself) identified by a brand, trade, or corporate name.
Brother USA’s website also seems to corroborate Mr. Konkel’s account of deceptive packaging regarding the Limited Warranty. Konkel said he was unable to review the actual terms of the warranty without first purchasing the printer. And, in fact, Brother’s website confirms that details of the company’s Limited Warranty can be viewed in the User Guide or “as an insert in the carton.” Neither would be accessible without opening the printer’s packaging.
Such practices appear to violate both Magnuson-Moss and other federal and state laws, including provisions of the federal FTC Act and the Sherman Act, both of which prohibit anticompetitive and deceptive business conduct.
The lawsuit highlights what one legal expert characterized as “ongoing abuse of warranty provisions that is all too common in markets for consumer goods.”
“Federal law makes it clear that manufacturers can’t condition warranty coverage on using particular providers of parts and service,” said Aaron Perzanowski, a professor at Case Western School of Law and the author of the new book, Right To Repair: Reclaiming The Things We Own.
Device makers often ignore the rules outlined in the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act and use scare tactics to dissuade consumers from relying on third-party or self-repair, Perzanowski wrote in an email. “The FTC has already made it clear that these sorts of restrictions are unlawful, yet it appears federal class action suits are still necessary to remind device makers of their legal obligations.”
A Flurry of Suits Targeting Repair Monopolies
The suit is further indication that the ground is shifting under such practices, however. It is just the latest filed on behalf of consumers and businesses to target unfair business practices related to repair and service. As we reported, farmers have filed anti-trust suits targeting agricultural equipment maker John Deere, which they allege unfairly restricts their ability and the ability of independent repair professionals to service its equipment. In July, a group of hospitals filed two, separate class action lawsuits naming Intuitive Surgical, a maker of surgical robots, for anticompetitive business practices related to repair and servicing of its products.
The suits come after the U.S. Federal Trade Commission (FTC) voted unanimously in July to increase scrutiny of repair restrictions and ramp up enforcement of antitrust and consumer protection laws intended to limit such practices.
Recent weeks have also seen a flurry of bills introduced in Congress targeting unfair repair restrictions affecting automobiles, agricultural equipment and home electronics.
“The gig is up,” said Nathan Proctor, the national director of the Right to Repair campaign at US PIRG. “Companies have been getting away with obvious monopoly schemes around the service of their products. It’s clear, as Right to Repair builds, those schemes won’t escape legal scrutiny any longer.”
We’ll continue to follow this and other class action suits linked to repair restrictions, and we’ll keep you apprised of their progress!