UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION
WESTERN REGION SAN FRANCISCO
Kerry O’Brien
Regional Director 90 Seventh Street
Suite 14-300
(415) 848-5189 San Francisco, California 94103
kobrien@ftc.gov
July 3, 2024
Via Federal Express
Eric Lu
Chief Executive Officer
G.B.T. Inc.
17358 Railroad St.
City of Industry, CA 91748
Compliance Warning Re: Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act
Dear Mr. Lu:
The Federal Trade Commission (“FTC” or “Commission”), the nation’s consumer
protection agency, enforces the Federal Trade Commission Act (“FTC Act”), 15 U.S.C. § 45,
which prohibits unfair or deceptive acts or practices in or affecting commerce. The FTC Act
requires that any representations be truthful and non-misleading. The FTC also enforces the
Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act (“the Warranty Act”), 15 U.S.C. §§ 2301–2312. The Warranty
Act is a law that governs consumer product warranties and, among other things, establishes
disclosure standards for written warranties. The Warranty Act prohibits warrantors of consumer
products costing more than five dollars from conditioning their written warranties on a
consumer’s use of any article or service, such as repair service, which is identified by brand,
trade, or corporate name, unless (1) the warranty states the article or service will be provided to
the consumer for free, or (2) the warrantor has been granted a waiver by the Commission.1
Similarly, warranty language that implies to a consumer acting reasonably under the
circumstances that warranty coverage requires the consumer to purchase an article or service
identified by brand, trade or corporate name is similarly deceptive and prohibited.2 A violation of
1
15 U.S.C. § 2302(c). A warrantor may apply for a waiver by demonstrating to the Commission that the warranted
product will function properly only if the article or service so identified is used in connection with the warranted
product and that the waiver is in the public interest.
2
16 C.F.R. 700.10; 15 U.S.C. § 2310(c).
1
the Warranty Act is a violation of Section 5 of the FTC Act, and the FTC has previously brought
actions against companies for this type of Section 5 violation.3
In addition, claims by a warrantor that create a false impression that a warranty would be
void due to the use of unauthorized parts or service may, apart from the Warranty Act, constitute
a deceptive practice under Section 5 of the FTC Act.4 Absent a Commission waiver pursuant to
Section 2302(c) of the Warranty Act, a warrantor claiming or suggesting that a warranty is void
simply because a consumer used unauthorized parts or service would have no basis for such a
claim.
The FTC’s Western Region San Francisco has reviewed written warranty materials
related to products offered by G.B.T. Inc. (“GIGABYTE”) available on gigabyte.com. Staff has
concerns about certain representations GIGABYTE is making regarding its warranty coverage.
In particular, staff is concerned about the repair restrictions inherent in the following statements
in GIGABYTE’s written warranty:
If the manufacturing sticker inside the product was removed or damaged, it would no
longer be covered by the warranty.
Staff similarly would be concerned about any additional representations made by
GIGABYTE that state or imply that its warranty coverage requires a consumer to purchase an
article or service identified by GIGABYTE or another brand, trade or corporate name.
Furthermore, staff would be concerned if GIGABYTE, in practice, denied warranty coverage
based on the warranty provisions quoted above or any similar provision.
This letter places you on notice that violations of the Warranty and FTC Acts may
result in legal action. FTC investigators have copied and preserved the online pages in
question, and we plan to review your company’s written warranty and promotional
materials after 30 days. You should review the Warranty and FTC Acts and, if necessary,
revise your practices to comply with the Acts’ requirements. By sending this letter, we do
not waive the FTC’s right to take law enforcement action and seek appropriate injunctive
and monetary remedies against GIGABYTE based on past or future violations.
3
See, e.g., Decision and Order, In re Harley-Davidson Motor Co. Grp., LLC, FTC Docket No. C-4778 (Oct. 21,
2022), https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/ftc_gov/pdf/2123140-Harley-Davidson-combined-package-without-
signatures.pdf; Decision and Order, In re Weber-Stephen Prods. LLC, FTC Docket No. C-4775 (Sept. 14, 2022),
https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/ftc_gov/pdf/Weber-Stephen%20Decision%20and%20Order.pdf; Decision and
Order, In re MWE Invs., LLC, FTC Docket No. C-4774 (Aug. 11, 2022), https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/ftc_gov/
pdf/222%203012%20%20Westinghouse%20Decision%20and%20Order.pdf.
4
15 U.S.C. § 45(a); 80 Fed. Reg. 42710, 42713 (July 20, 2015) (citing Letter from James C. Miller III, Chairman,
Fed. Trade Comm’n, et al., to Rep. John D. Dingell (Oct. 14, 1983), reprinted in Cliffdale Assocs., Inc., 103 F.T.C.
110, 174 (1984), https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/documents/public_statements/410531/831014 deceptionstmt.pdf).
2
Thank you for your attention to this matter. Please direct any inquiries concerning this
letter to Abdiel Lewis at alewis4@ftc.gov and Alyssa Wu at awu1@ftc.gov.
Sincerely,
Kerry O’Brien
Regional Director
Western Region San Francisco
