Consumer Warranty Law: ALASKA
Alaska Stat. § 45.25.620
Alaska Stat. § 45.25.620
Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. §§ 20-206, 20-356, 20-357, 20-1095 to 20-1095.10, 20-1110.01
Ark. Code Ann. §§ 4-90-501 to 4-90-512
Cal. Civ. Code §§ 1794.4, 1794.45 (West)
Colo. Rev. Stat. §§ 42-11-101 to 42-11-109
Conn. Gen. Stat. § 42-260
D.C. Code § 28-3904
It shall be an unlawful trade practice, whether or not any consumer is in fact misled, deceived or damaged thereby, for any person to fail to supply to a consumer a copy of a service contract which the consumer executes (§ 28-3904(q)).
D.C. Code §§ 31-2351.01 to 31-2351.13
The mere sale of a defective product can be a UDAP violation, apart from any breach of warranty. This claim can be based on express warranties and other statements that give the consumer the impression that the product is not defective, or the claim can be based on the seller’s failure to disclose product defects.
Deceptive advertising is particularly susceptible to a UDAP challenge. Various state or FTC precedent has found the following to be unfair or deceptive:
It is basic UDAP law that a seller’s misrepresentation of the buyer’s legal rights is a UDAP violation.64 Thus, any form of misrepresentation of a consumer’s warranty rights is a UDAP violation. In addition, a number of state UDAP statutes specifically forbid misrepresentation of the nature of offered warranties, misrepresentation that implied warranties are not disclaimed, or misrepresentation of any other consumer or seller right or obligation.65
If the seller’s assurances regarding the condition or features of a product are false they are UDAP violations.84 They are violations even if the seller’s statements do not amount to express warranties because of the parol evidence rule,85 or if the contract contains an “as is” or similar clause.86 Nondisclosure of defects may also be a UDAP violation.87 Some UDAP statutes explicitly require disclosure that g
A breach of a service contract may be an automatic UDAP violation.96 While there is little UDAP precedent in this area, case law in two related areas is relevant. First are cases holding that a breach of any contract is a UDAP violation, at least if there are aggravating circumstances such as repeated breaches, deception, or taking advantage of the consumer’s vulnerability. Second are cases holding that failure to pay an insurance claim is a UDAP violation.
UCC § 2-302(1) provides:
If the court as a matter of law finds the contract or any clause of the contract to have been unconscionable at the time it was made the court may refuse to enforce the contract, or it may enforce the remainder of the contract without the unconscionable clause, or it may so limit the application of any unconscionable clause as to avoid any unconscionable result.106
Section 2-302(1) explicitly states that the issue of unconscionability is for the court to decide as a matter of law.114 In addition, Comment 3 to section 2-302 reads:
Section 2-302 allows the court to strike an unconscionable clause if it was unconscionable at the time it was made.121 The section does not apply to clauses which are reasonable when agreed to, but which become burdensome because of changed circumstances. As comment 1 to section 2-302 explains, the intent is not to disturb risk allocation merely because the burdens happen to fall on one party with unexpected force.
Del. Code Ann. tit. 18, §§ 917, 918
Defines service contract, maintenance agreement, warranty, and vehicle theft protection product warranty (§ 918). None of these are insurance, unless the insurance laws are “made expressly applicable thereto” (§ 917).
Fla. Stat. §§ 634.011 to 634.288
Ga. Code Ann. § 33-7-6
Haw. Rev. Stat. § 431:1-209(14)
Included in definition of casualty insurance and thus subject to insurance regulations is any contract of warranty or guaranty which promises service maintenance, parts replacement, repair, money, or any other indemnity in the event of loss of or damage to a motor vehicle or any part thereof, if made by a party conducting an insurance business; provided that service contracts, as defined and meeting the requirements of Haw Rev. Stat. ch. 481X, shall not be subject to Haw Rev. Stat. ch. 431.
Idaho Code §§ 41-506(b), 41-1812, 41-6201 to 41-6211
215 Ill. Comp. Stat. §§ 152/1 to 152/99
Ind. Code §§ 27-1-43.2-1 to 27-1-43.2-19
These provisions are effective November 26, 2018. A service contract is not insurance (§ 27-1-43.2-10(a)). Other than for a motor vehicle service contract, the contract company must provide proof of financial solvency (§§ 27-1-43.2-11(a), 27-1-43.2-14). For any contract, the contractor must make disclosures to the consumer (§ 27-1-43.2-12).
Iowa Code §§ 523C.1 to 523C.24
Kan. Stat. Ann. § 40-201a
Service contracts exempt from insurance regulation.