The Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, codified at 15 U.S.C. §§ 2301–2312, is the federal consumer-warranty statute enacted in 1975 to regulate written warranties on consumer products sold in the United States. It creates a federal cause of action for breach of written or implied warranty and, under § 2310(d)(2), shifts attorney’s fees onto the manufacturer when the consumer prevails. In California lemon law cases, Magnuson-Moss is almost always pleaded alongside the state Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act — the federal claim provides an alternate jurisdictional path and a backstop where state coverage is unclear.
Origins and Purpose
Magnuson-Moss was signed into law in 1975 in response to widespread abuse of “limited” warranties by manufacturers. Before Magnuson-Moss, written warranties on consumer products often disclaimed implied warranties, contained hidden exclusions, and were not enforceable in any practical sense for low-value goods. The Act was authored by Senator Warren Magnuson (D-WA) and Representative John Moss (D-CA).
The statute is administered by the Federal Trade Commission, which issues rules (16 C.F.R. Parts 700–703) interpreting Magnuson-Moss requirements for warranty disclosure, designation as “full” or “limited,” and informal dispute settlement procedures.
What Magnuson-Moss Covers
Magnuson-Moss applies to any consumer product normally used for personal, family, or household purposes that is sold with a written warranty. The statute does not require manufacturers to issue warranties — but when they do, those warranties must comply with Magnuson-Moss disclosure rules and become enforceable in federal court.
- New and used motor vehicles sold with a written manufacturer’s warranty
- Leased vehicles, where a written warranty is provided
- RVs, motorcycles, and consumer products generally
- Service contracts sold with consumer products (regulated separately from warranties)
Magnuson-Moss does not apply to commercial products purchased for resale, or to products sold without a written warranty.
Key Provisions
- § 2301 — Definitions
- Defines “consumer product,” “written warranty,” “implied warranty,” and “service contract.” The definitions section determines which products and which warranties fall within the statute.
- § 2302 — Disclosure rules for written warranties
- Manufacturers issuing written warranties on consumer products costing more than $15 must make full terms available pre-sale.
- § 2303 — Designation as “full” or “limited”
- Written warranties must be designated as “full” or “limited.” A “full” warranty triggers heightened obligations including refund or replacement after a reasonable number of repair attempts.
- § 2308 — Implied warranties cannot be disclaimed when written warranty is given
- If a manufacturer issues a written warranty, it cannot disclaim implied warranties (merchantability, fitness for purpose) on the same product. This provision is the federal backstop for state implied-warranty law.
- § 2310(d) — Civil cause of action
- Creates the federal private right of action. Subsection (d)(1) permits suit in federal or state court. Subsection (d)(2) provides for the prevailing consumer’s recovery of attorney’s fees and costs.
Magnuson-Moss vs. Song-Beverly: When Each Applies
For California consumers, both statutes typically cover the same vehicle, but they differ in remedies and procedure:
| Feature | Magnuson-Moss (federal) | Song-Beverly (California) |
|---|---|---|
| Cause of action | Breach of written or implied warranty | Same, plus the lemon presumption |
| Fee-shifting | § 2310(d)(2) | § 1794(d) — typically broader interpretation in CA courts |
| Civil penalty | None | Up to 2× actual damages for willful violations (§ 1794(c)) |
| Lemon presumption | None | § 1793.22 — four attempts / 30 days / 18 mo or 18,000 mi |
| Jurisdiction | Federal or state | State (CA) |
| Amount-in-controversy | $50,000 for federal court | None |
| Used vehicles | Yes if written warranty | Yes if manufacturer or CPO warranty |
Song-Beverly is the stronger statute for California consumers because of the civil penalty and the lemon presumption. Magnuson-Moss is pleaded alongside as a backstop and to preserve federal venue.
Why Pleading Both Matters
- Federal venue option. Magnuson-Moss permits suit in federal court when the amount in controversy exceeds $50,000. Federal court can be advantageous for complex multi-vehicle defects or when the manufacturer has previously litigated similar facts there.
- Fee-shifting in either court. Both statutes’ fee provisions apply regardless of venue.
- Implied-warranty backstop. § 2308 incorporates state implied-warranty law and prevents manufacturers from disclaiming implied warranties via the written warranty.
- “Full” warranty designation. When a manufacturer markets a “full” written warranty, § 2303 triggers stronger refund/replace obligations independent of Song-Beverly.
Statute of Limitations
Magnuson-Moss has no independent statute of limitations. Federal courts apply the state limitations period for breach of warranty — in California, four years from breach under Commercial Code § 2725. See statute of limitations for lemon law claims.
Free Lemon Law Case Review
A McMillan Law Group attorney will tell you whether your facts support a Song-Beverly or Magnuson-Moss claim. Free, statewide, no fee unless we win.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act?
The federal consumer-warranty statute, 15 U.S.C. §§ 2301–2312, enacted in 1975. It regulates written warranties on consumer products and creates a federal private right of action with fee-shifting.
Is Magnuson-Moss the same as the California Lemon Law?
No. The California Lemon Law is the Song-Beverly Act, a state statute. Magnuson-Moss is federal and weaker in most respects, but the two are typically pleaded together.
Does Magnuson-Moss have fee-shifting?
Yes — § 2310(d)(2). The manufacturer pays the prevailing consumer’s reasonable attorney’s fees and costs.
Can I sue in federal court under Magnuson-Moss?
Yes, when the amount in controversy exceeds $50,000. Below that threshold, the claim is filed in state court alongside the Song-Beverly claim.