Advisory opinion letter to Mr. Raymond

ADVISORY OPINIONS 659

Sincerc1y,

Isl Jack W. Houston
Executive Director
g. ,

66D FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSIO DECISIONS

89 F.

Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act-Compliance of Ultrafiche System with 16 C. R. 702, (File No. 773 7005).

Opinion Letter

March 18, 1977

Dear Mr. Raymond:

This is in response to your request for an advisory opinion concerning a proposed mcthod of complying with the Commission s Rule on Pre-Salc Availability of Written Warranty Terms , 16 C. R. 702. Your rcquest was made foUowing the Commission s advisory opinion of November , 1976, to the Nationa1 Retail Hardware Association (NRHA) approving use of a microfiche reader system to satisfy Part 702.3(a)(1)(ii) of the Rule. 41 F.R. 53472. The Rule rcquires a retailer to maintain a binder "or r oiher J similar systcm* * *" giving consumers convenient access to warranties. " 16 C. R. 702. 1(g). Specifically, you ask whethcr an ultrafiche viewing system would also satisfy Part 702.3(a)(1)(ii) of the Rule. In addition, you ask whether a retailer wishing to use an ultrafiche system under the Rule must comply with the condition set forth in the advisory opinion to the RHA that:

The warranties appear on separate microfiche cards which cont.ain aU warranties for a given product class, and only that product class (e. vacuum cleancrs), and which do not contain any other product information * * *' The system you propose is substantially similar to the RHA microfiche system. Information is stored on cards in greatly reduced vie" photographic form. The cards can then be insertcd into a machine which magnifies the information and displays it in readable form on a screen.

The basic difference between the two systems is that an ultrafichc card contains 2 800 pages of information while a microfichc card typically contains less than 100. You argue that requiring a separate ultrafichc card for the warranties relating to each class of products would defeat the purpose of an ultrafiche system.

The Commission has carefully considered the mattcrs set forth in your letter. It is the Commission s conclusion that the ultrafiche system you propose win satisfy the Commission s Rule if:

. Published in theFederal P.egl.stcr 42 F- R 15679. ADVISORY OPI;-JONS 661

(1) Simple, comp1cte instructions for use of the system are posted on each ultrafiche viewer; and (2) Personnel in each se!!ing establishment familiar with the operation of the system are available to assist consumers should the need arise; and (3) Ultrafiche cards used to display warranties contain only warranty information.

The Commission further concludes that the warranties relating to more than one product class may bc stored on a single ultrafiche card provided the conditions listed below are met. loreover, the Commission has reconsidcred the requirement set forth in its opinion to the NRHA that the warranties for each product class be displayed on separate microfiche cards. Therefore , the Commission concludes that the warranties rclating to more than one product class may be displayed on either a single ultrai"iche or a single microfiche card if: (1) All warranties relating to a product class are grouped together on the same ultrafichc or microfiche card; and (2) All warranties relating to a particular product class appear on the same row or column of the ultrafiche or microfiche card; and

(3) Each ultrafiche or microfiche card contains a clear product index.

These conditions are required to ensure that consumers have the convenient access" to warranties required by the Rule. By direction of the Commission.

Letta Revising COlUld'ions on Use of lVhcTOfiche System