Volkswagen Tiguan is Latest Example of Defect Warning Via Magnuson-Moss Violation
In December, NOLN ran a story about a recently filed engine defect case against Volkswagen. Westlund et al v. Volkswagen Group of America Inc., Case No. 2:24-cv-11197, is a class action filed in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey alleging that Volkswagen engaged in unfair, deceptive, and/or fraudulent business practices by denying warranty coverage for a design defect that causes excessive oil consumption in 2022-23 Volkswagen Tiguan vehicles with 2.0L engines. This result was predictable years ago based on a flagrant Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act violation in Volkswagen’s owners’ manuals as well as confusing information in the company’s USA Warranty and Maintenance Booklets for 2020-23 gasoline engine models.
The 2020-23 Volkswagen Tiguan owners’ manuals contain the following Magnuson-Moss-prohibited tie-in brand service requirement:
“Engine oil and filter changes require special tools, technical knowledge and the correct disposal of used oil. Therefore always have the engine oil and filters changed by an authorized Volkswagen dealer or authorized Volkswagen Service Facility.” (emphasis added)
Under 15 USC §2302(c), a manufacturer can only require a brand part or service if it is either provided free of charge or the manufacturer first obtains a waiver from the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) by proving the warranted product only works properly with the required brand product or service. To date, no automaker has obtained such a waiver, and in the case of Volkswagen Tiguan owners, the brand service was not provided for free.
Why would Volkswagen risk incurring the wrath of FTC or getting sued for deceptive marketing practices especially after FTC’s splashy 2015 enforcement against BMW MINI for a similar owner’s manual statement? Consumer complaints indicate that several Volkswagen engines (including the 2.0L engine in later model Tiguans) have a serious oil consumption problem that Volkswagen neither discloses prior to purchase nor remedies upon presentation. However, if Volkswagen can convince most owners to use only Volkswagen dealers, then they can better control what consumers believe about their engine problem—it’s “normal” or it’s their own fault for failure to use the correct service interval or required brand parts and service. In other words, Magnuson-Moss tie-in sales violations can be a tactic to delay discovery of an engine defect. Think 2011-16 Ford Focus/Fiesta and too many Hyundai/Kia models to list here.
The Volkswagen owners’ manuals and warranty booklets add to owners’ woes by acknowledging a difference between normal and severe service intervals for oil changes without including a comprehensive explanation of the conditions Volkswagen deems “severe.” Instead, they refer to severe conditions “such as extremely low temperatures, excessive dust, etc.” The etcetera gives Volkswagen wiggle room when a consumer’s engine seizes from lack of adequate engine oil. Does Volkswagen provide details on “severe” conditions somewhere else? Possibly. But like the deception now associated with unbundled fees, scattering crucial service information should be automatically scrutinized as a method of confusing consumers and setting them up to fail.
According to Volkswagen, each “Class Vehicle” in Westlund et al v. Volkswagen contains a smart oil monitor that gauges how much oil is in the engine and illuminates a light on a driver’s dashboard when the engine is ready to be refilled. Consumer complaints indicate the monitor doesn’t work as described. Moreover, Volkswagen’s promotion of oil change intervals at 10,000 miles or every year, whichever occurs first, further confuses consumers, who don’t understand the potential need to add oil frequently in between those intervals.
The specific engine defect, according to the plaintiffs, is a piston ring design defect that causes insufficient piston ring tension, which allows engine oil into the combustion chamber. Plaintiffs also allege the engine has an inadequate PCV system that fails to reduce pressure in the crankcase, especially when it is exacerbated by increased blow-by from the piston ring defect.
Automotive aftermarket service providers and consumers should be on the lookout for warranty denials based on the use of non-Volkswagen brand service and parts. Those with relevant case information can reach out to the plaintiffs’ attorneys Benjamin Johns [email protected], Samantha Holbrook [email protected], and Andrea Bonner [email protected] at Shub & Johns LLC in Conshohocken, Pennsylvania.
