Do you remember what you were doing in the summer of 2022?

If you're a Harley fan, you may recall that's when three different federal right-to-repair class action lawsuits were filed in three different federal courts in the US. And you may also recall that shortly before those suits were filed, the US Federal Trade Commission issued a sternly worded warning telling Harley that it must abide by existing right-to-repair rules.

But it's 2024, not 2022. So what became of the lawsuits? We now know the outcome of one of them as, according to a ruling from US District Judge William Griesbach in Green Bay, Wisconsin, that particular case has now officially been dismissed.

The case involved 15 separate plaintiffs who purchased Harley-Davidson motorcycles from dealerships across 11 states. Their argument was that Harley's warranty forces Harley owners to purchase Harley-branded parts (rather than aftermarket parts) in order to not void their warranties. 

According to the official ruling, the plaintiffs stated that Harley's limited warranty would only cover repairs if the owners had all service and repairs completed by an authorized Harley-Davidson dealer, using only Harley-Davidson authorized parts.

Get the best news, reviews, columns, and more delivered straight to your inbox.
For more information, read our
Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.

Furthermore, the plaintiffs stated that this constituted illegal tying of Harley's motorcycles and its factory warranties to its parts, allowing the parts to be overpriced. The plaintiffs also claimed that Harley actively incentivized its dealers to find reasons to void warranties, even if the customers abided by all the terms set forth.

The "illegal tying" language relates to one of the 90 separate counts of violation that plaintiffs alleged in their complaint, and specifically relates to language in the federal Magnusson-Moss Warranty Act. This, along with all the other things alleged by the plaintiffs, all end in the phrase "Plaintiffs have failed to state a claim," written repeatedly throughout the official ruling.

Finally, the plaintiffs in this case had also alleged "unjust enrichment. To tie the dismissal up with a bow, the Court writes that "Plaintiffs' allegations of unlawful conduct are based on the same allegations as Plantiffs' other claims. Because Plantiffs' other claims do not survive, Plantiffs' unjust enrichment claims suffer the same fate."

All claims were thus dismissed in the US District Court in the Eastern District of Wisconsin, but plaintiffs were also given 30 days within which they could file an amended lawsuit if they wished.

Got a tip for us? Email: