Harley-Davidson Motorcycles: Warranty Failures
Harley-Davidson does not permit customers to choose how they repair and maintain their motorcycles. Instead, to insure future revenue for itself, Harley-Davidson unfairly and unlawfully ties the continuity of the motorcycles’ warranty coverage with obtaining repairs only from authorized dealers and on using only Harley-Davidson authorized parts and accessories. In other words, if a consumer repairs his or her own motorcycle or uses an independent dealer and/or installs unauthorized parts or accessories on his or her motorcycle, Harley-Davidson threatens that it will void the warranty. Sales of genuine parts and accessories are Harley-Davidson’s second-largest source of revenue and consistently comprise approximately 20% of those revenues.
Additionally, Harley-Davidson unlawfully fails to provide consumers with the written warranty or this tying arrangement in the warranty prior to purchase; instead Harley- Davidson instructs consumers to consult its authorized dealers for the full terms of its warranty coverage.
Our lawsuit seeks a temporary and permanent injunction preventing Harley-Davidson from continuing the unlawful, deceptive, fraudulent, and unfair business practices as alleged in the Complaint, and other damages as awarded by the Court.
The case was filed in the United States District Court, Northern District of California on August 5, 2022. Defendant moved to transfer venue, Plaintiff opposed. Defendant filed its answer. The Court did not rule on the motion but instead the case was transferred and consolidated with other similiar caess in an MDL in the Eastern District of Wisconsin. The case will proceed in conjunction with the other consolidated cases pending in the MDL.
Who is Covered:
All natural persons who purchased a Harley-Davidson motorcycles. Excluded from the Class are persons who made such purchases for purpose of resale. The California Subclass consists of all Class Members who reside in California.
|2022-08-05||Class Action Complaint|
|2022-10-28||Defendants' Answer to Class Action Complaint|
|2022-11-04||Plaintiff's Opposition to Defendants' Motion to Transfer Venue|