Thx for the relply....BUT...much of the info you've presented regarding Moss Magnuson is not correct. We are VERY familiar with the Act and VERY familiar with Ford's approach to it. One might say too familiar. In Michigan, lemon law does not apply to this situation, but MM does. MM is a federal Act that provides for remedy where consumers feel the company is not in compliance with the Act. It is NOT arbitration like you say, in fact arbitration is non-existent in this situation in Michigan. The consumer is able to sure in federal court as remedy. I'm not sure on your experience with MM, but the way you've described it is not accurate unfortunately.
I too agree that it's time for someone to figure this thing out for '16s!!
As I explained, it provides for free arbitration, don't know where you got your info but I printed it below for you, the process is as I described. It only allows three way to take action on the Act. First is arbitration. You also have the option to sue in federal court if you have many thousands to pay a Lawyer and your damages are over $50K. Your third remedy is State court and again you pay attorneys if you lose. So most people take the arbitration route. I think you are confusing state laws and MM. See the legal remedies below for M-M. The first line states that "arbitration" or as the feds put it "informal dispute-settlement procedures" is used with Courts being an option. I filed with the FTC and we went to an arbitrator just like the act says unless you want the lawyer route. I lost to Dodge because the timing belt used for a replacement broke and destroyed the engine. The dodge rep showed documents on the factory belt, I showed a receipt for the Gates brand belt we used. Arbitrator ask for proof the belt met Chrysler specs and I did not have any documents proving it. Gates would have provided the documents showing the belt met specs. No do overs, I lost and we spent $6k on a rebuilt engine. Had I known then what I know now I would have won. So, don't know what your experience was but mine was just as it was explained it would be in the M-M Act. Below is an explanation of the act and the actual act wording on the "arbitration" as such. No State can circumvent a Federal law, did you actually file a complaint with the FTC or just filed on the M-M Act in state Court?
Explanation of the act
Remedies under the Act
The act is meant to provide consumers with access to reasonable and effective remedies where there is a breach of warranty on a consumer product. The act provides for informal dispute-settlement procedures and for actions brought by the government and by private parties.
The FTC has been mandated by Congress to promulgate rules to encourage the use of alternative dispute resolution, and full warranties may require mediation and/or arbitration as a first step toward settling disputes.
In addition, the federal government has the authority to take injunctive action against a supplier or warrantor who fails to meet the requirements of the act.
Finally, consumers may seek redress in the courts for alleged violations of the Magnuson–Moss Act. A consumer who has been injured by a supplier's noncompliance may bring an action in federal court if the amount in controversy is over $50,000 or a class action if the number of class plaintiffs is greater than 100. If the jurisdictional amount, or number of plaintiffs, does not meet these thresholds, an action under the act may be brought only in state court.[10] Moreover, one of the key aids to the effectiveness of the act is that a prevailing plaintiff may recover reasonable costs of suit, including attorney fees.[11]
The actual code
(a) Informal dispute settlement procedures; establishment; rules setting forth minimum requirements; effect of compliance by warrantor; review of informal procedures or implementation by Commission; application to existing informal procedures
(1) Congress hereby declares it to be its policy to encourage warrantors to establish procedures whereby consumer disputes are fairly and expeditiously settled through informal dispute settlement mechanisms.
(2) The Commission shall prescribe rules setting forth minimum requirements for any informal dispute settlement procedure which is incorporated into the terms of a written warranty to which any provision of this chapter applies. Such rules shall provide for participation in such procedure by independent or governmental entities
).
![[???:)]](/images/smilies/confused.gif "Really Confused [???:)]")
