PITTSBURGH – One Western Pennsylvania woman claims that Wayfair has violated the Anti-Tying Rule by stating that its warranties on its goods will be void, if consumers use third-party repair services to service the items they purchased from it.
Annamarie Galante (on behalf of herself and all others similarly-situated) filed suit in the Allegheny County Court of Common Pleas on Nov. 7 versus Wayfair, Inc. and Wayfair, LLC (doing business as “Lark Manor”), both of Boston, Mass.
“On or about July 29, 2022, plaintiff purchased a Lark Manor rolling kitchen island, manufactured by defendants. As part of the product’s underlying sales price, plaintiff also purchased a warranty representing defendants’ promise to stand behind the product. The warranty, and additional representations related thereto, lead consumers, including plaintiff, to believe that third-party repair will void the warranty. For example, the warranty states in pertinent part that, ‘This warranty does not apply to any product which has been improperly assembled, subjected to misuse or abuse or which has been altered or repaired in any way,” the suit says.
“Based on the warranty’s terms, plaintiff is unable to repair the product via a third-party, independent repair service without purportedly voiding her warranty, thereby limiting plaintiff to a fraction of the repair marketplace. Because plaintiff is limited to a smaller marketplace for service and repair, it is likely she will encounter reduced availability among providers and higher prices for their services. Plaintiff anticipates buying other consumers goods in the future, and would consider purchasing such goods from defendant, but does not wish to have her rights under the Anti-Tying Rule thwarted by defendants’ unlawful warranty terms.”
The suit adds that the plaintiff seeks to certify as a class all persons in Pennsylvania who purchased a product subject to defendants’ warranty within the class period.
“Despite the unambiguous requirements of Magnuson-Moss, defendants continue to represent to their customers both explicitly and implicitly that third-party repair will void the warranty. These misrepresentations – which have been in effect for years – lead consumers to believe that their warranties are voided by third-party repairs. Defendants’ warranties have harmed and continue to harm plaintiff and the class members by depriving them of the warranty benefits guaranteed to them by federal law. As a result of such harm, plaintiff and the class members are entitled to injunctive relief and corresponding declaratory relief,” the suit states.
For violation of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, the plaintiff is seeking the case to be certified as a class action, a finding that the defendants’ actions constitute violations of the MMWA, judgment against defendants for all injunctive, declaratory and other equitable relief sought and all costs, including experts’ fees, attorneys’ fees, costs of prosecuting this action and such other legal and equitable relief as the Court may deem appropriate.
The plaintiff is represented by Edwin J. Kilpela Jr., Elizabeth Pollock-Avery and Kenneth A. Held of Lynch Carpenter, plus Kevin Tucker, Kevin J. Abramowicz, Chandler Steiger and Stephanie Moore, all in Pittsburgh.
The defendants have not yet obtained legal counsel.
Allegheny County Court of Common Pleas case GD-22-013695
From the Pennsylvania Record: Reach Courts Reporter Nicholas Malfitano at nick.malfitano@therecordinc.com