Is America's FTC Investigating McDonalds' Right to Repair McFlurry Machines? (cbsnews.com) 89
America's consumer-protection agency has apparently launched a "preliminary investigation" into how often McDonalds franchise owners are allowed to repair their own McFlurry-making equipment, reports CBS Moneywatch (citing an article Tuesday in the Wall Street Journal).
The machine's manufacturer insists that the product's warranty is void if purchasers attempt to fix machines on their own, according to the Wall Street Journal. But CBS MoneyWatch adds: It's illegal for companies to make warranties conditional on the use of certain parts or services, a practice antitrust law calls "tying"...
The Federal Trade Commission in July issued a new policy broadly in favor of the "right to repair," an issue that President Joe Biden singled out in a broad executive order on anticompetitive practices. The agency is now writing new rules targeting repair restrictions. "If this [case] is connected to that, it's going to be the first example of the FTC looking at repair restrictions as something worth investigating," said Nathan Proctor, senior director of the Right to Repair campaign for the U.S. Public Interest Group.
The machine's manufacturer insists that the product's warranty is void if purchasers attempt to fix machines on their own, according to the Wall Street Journal. But CBS MoneyWatch adds: It's illegal for companies to make warranties conditional on the use of certain parts or services, a practice antitrust law calls "tying"...
The Federal Trade Commission in July issued a new policy broadly in favor of the "right to repair," an issue that President Joe Biden singled out in a broad executive order on anticompetitive practices. The agency is now writing new rules targeting repair restrictions. "If this [case] is connected to that, it's going to be the first example of the FTC looking at repair restrictions as something worth investigating," said Nathan Proctor, senior director of the Right to Repair campaign for the U.S. Public Interest Group.
Re:Free market? (Score:5, Insightful)
> FTFY — Isn't capitalism wonderful, comrade!
With all the information available one would think people would understand what capitalism actually is.
The primary tenant of capitalism is a large pool of consumers and a large pool of producers for the fair exchange of goods and services.
Once you have an equilibrium it self manages so government no longer has to micro manage commerce. However, it does not eliminate the need for government intervention AND actually requires government intervention to maintain the equilibrium. This includes but is not limited to: enforcing contracts, ensuring fair trade, breaking up not only monopolies but also stepping in when players become large enough to influence markets.
Capitalism takes away the mundane and futile task of having government micromanage transactions, set prices, decide what goods are produced, etc.
McDonalds forcing a single vendor on franchises is the exact opposite of capitalism. In fact, this is an example of a centrally controlled micro-economy. What does that remind you of?
So the correct statement should be... "Aren't centrally planned economies wonderful, comrade!"
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
The primary tenant of capitalism
The tenant has been evicted.
Re:Free market? (Score:5, Insightful)
> FTFY — Isn't capitalism wonderful, comrade!
With all the information available one would think people would understand what capitalism actually is.
Ah, the "No True Scottsman" argument. By your logic, Communism never failed because all failed countries that claimed to have followed Communism actually didn't!
Regardless of what you imagine Capitalism is supposed to be, the kind of capitalism actually practiced in America IS "Capital owns everything". From too big to fail and too big to jail, to bailing out the rich (and tax cuts) while evicting the poor.
Borrowing an argument often seen here, whatever McDonalds did, they aren't the government, so they are free to do whatever as long as it is legal, and you cannot label that as "central planning". This, is Capitalism as practiced in America.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
They did, however, suffer the plague of corruption.
Re: Free market? (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
> FTFY — Isn't capitalism wonderful, comrade!
With all the information available one would think people would understand what capitalism actually is. The primary tenant of capitalism is a large pool of consumers and a large pool of producers for the fair exchange of goods and services. Once you have an equilibrium it self manages so government no longer has to micro manage commerce. However, it does not eliminate the need for government intervention AND actually requires government intervention to maintain the equilibrium. This includes but is not limited to: enforcing contracts, ensuring fair trade, breaking up not only monopolies but also stepping in when players become large enough to influence markets.
Capitalism takes away the mundane and futile task of having government micromanage transactions, set prices, decide what goods are produced, etc.
McDonalds forcing a single vendor on franchises is the exact opposite of capitalism. In fact, this is an example of a centrally controlled micro-economy. What does that remind you of?
So the correct statement should be... "Aren't centrally planned economies wonderful, comrade!"
YES. Many industries server better and more effectively. I am thinking of healthcare, of law-and-order, education, to name three.
Re: (Score:2)
We're not living in a capitalist world. A capitalist nation is not one where government is absent, but one where government ensures that competition thrives and anticompetitive moves are discouraged our outright outlawed.
Re: (Score:2)
If you read Wealth of Nations, but Adam Smith, the Father of Capitalism and the book that basically explains the thing called Capitalism, it is the when the government regulates business to ensure an equal playing field.
That no-rules stuff is exactly what they had before Capitalism was invented.
Anti-trust law is a core Capitalism enforcement mechanism. Collusion is the primary thing preventing anybody with enough capital from being able to compete. That's the necessary condition for Capitalism. Tying is
What's wrong, exactly? (Score:1)
I'm not sure, whether Federal Government should be inserting itself in between manufacturers and individual consumers. But for it to "investigate" — even if "preliminarily" — an aspect of a relationship between two major corporations, well, that's a certain mission creep [wikipedia.org]. Bureaucracy seeking to expand its power.
This stance seem
Re: (Score:3)
Except that it is explicitly forbidden by law. That law does allow for voiding particular warranty claims IF the customer's "unauthorized" repairs actually caused the damage.
Surely you're not claiming that government has no legitimate interest in enforcing the law?!?
Re: (Score:2)
Please, cite the relevant law — and be sure to include such citations in all future postings with claims as to some law's existence, too.
The laws are passed by lawmakers and signed by the executives.
What we're talking about here appears to be (hard to say, because you didn't include a citation) a regulation, rather than a law. A regulation issued by an unelected bo
Re:What's wrong, exactly? (Score:5, Informative)
Start with the Magnuson–Moss Warranty Act [wikipedia.org] and work outwards from there.
That's the same law that says GM can't deny you a warranty repair on your transmission because you used a non-approved air filter.
See also Federal Trade Commission Act of 1914 [wikipedia.org]. There's a large fan-out from there.
But in short, it is well established that requiring only authorized service and parts is contrary to law. In order to void a warranty claim, manufacturer must show that unauthorized service or parts specifically caused the problem.
Quite a few companies have been trying various end-runs and simply breaking the law and relying on poor enforcement for a long time. Recently, there has been political pressure to actually enforce the existing law as well as to expand the scope of that law.
This seems reasonable to me. Anything else beggars the concept of ownership.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
That law defines "consumer" as someone buying a product for personal use, which immediately disqualifies commercial users making your citation irrelevant and invalid.
That created the FTC — creating a big fall-out, indeed. Congress began abdicating its law-making role at the beginning of the 20th century, handing i
Re: (Score:2)
It is unlikely that someone with a DOA product, which is what a drop of solder in the middle of the board causing a short would be, would attempt to repair it themselves. As for the exact part of the law it would be 15 USC 2304 Sec 104 4(b)(1). In order to enforce additional conditions to a warrantied product like void if sticker removed or void if repaired by a third party, a company would have to go before the FTC or a judge and demonstrate exactly why such a thing is necessary for every single part or pr
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe, it did function — briefly — despite the solder being there. Or, maybe, the purchaser simply didn't use the functionality affected by the defect. Or, maybe, the purchaser didn't use the DOA device at all immediately upon purchasing.
Thanks... The actual verse reads [cornell.edu]:
Re: (Score:2)
It very much is a duty imposed. A person attempting repair of a product does not mean it did not malfunction, was not defective, or did not conform to the warranty.
Re: (Score:2)
I ask you again: can the manufacturer prohibit you to smash the device with a hammer, when it is not working?
The ban on opening is just as much a "duty imposed" as the ban on smashing is.
And, of course, you failed to address the two other points raised — and your client has lost the case...
Re: (Score:2)
(Shrug) The law will be changed as necessary to stop this bullshit. If the manufacturer didn't want it changed, they should have thought about that before basing their business model on rent seeking.
Re: (Score:2)
The legal definition of consumer laughs in your face.
(3) The term “consumer” means a buyer (other than for purposes of resale) of any consumer product, any person to whom such product is transferred during the duration of an implied or written warranty (or service contract) applicable to the product, and any other person who is entitled by the terms of such warranty (or service contract) or under applicable State law to enforce against the warrantor (or service contractor) the obligations of the
Re: (Score:2)
Expansion can also be done through the legislature. For example passing a law that expands the scope of an existing law or that draws a bright line is what was a gray area. For example, the various proposed right to repair legislation.
In the mean time, Biden has directed the FTC to pay more attention to enforcing existing laws on the subject.
Delegation is a modern necessity. Do you actually expect our legislators to know enough to outline best practices in neurosurgery, for example?
And is it even possible to determine, who's at fault? Suppose, we find inside an electronic board with a drop of cold solder in the middle. Was that a manufacturing defect, or did the idiot trying to "repair" (or "improve"!) it, fused all the chips together?
That's easy. Show that i
Re: (Score:2)
Is that your excuse for violating the Constitution? What else would you approve of? Can Congress vote to abdicate itself — passing not just Trade, Health, and Communications, but all rule-making to some Politburo? For efficiency?
They can certainly invite subject-matter experts to explain things to them — it is done quite routinely [spie.org]...
Do you, actually, want
Re: (Score:2)
Please show me where in the Constitution where sub-delegation of powers is forbidden. In theory, yes, the legislature could delegate everything but the delegation itself. But they would have the electorate to answer to. They would also face an endless series of court challenges since they would have to be fairly specific in the legislation delegating everything.
Separation of powers (Score:2)
Ok, I take it, the citation of the law actually violated by McFlurry-makers is not forthcoming, is it? Fine, let's change the subject:
Article I [cornell.edu], section 1 [cornell.edu] specifically:
Transferring legislative powers to the likes of FCC, FTC, Department of Education's Office of Civil Rights
Re: (Score:2)
That's a strange exception you're making — why would delegating the delegation be illegal, according to your view?
Because the constitution states that the power is vested in Congress. They can delegate it but they cannot give it away. Thus, they cannot delegate away the power to decide if the power shall be delegated.
This much feared POLITBURO of yours could not cancel the democratic process because congress doesn't have that power and so can't delegate it.
As for the court issues, congress would still have to deal with it because periodically there are court cases that decide on whether or not congress has a given powe
Re: (Score:2)
Yes indeed — giving that power to anyone is unconstitutional — just as I said.
The distinction you're trying to make is without difference. The terms "delegating" and "giving away" can be used interchangeably, when applied to "power" — such as in our conversation.
Of course, they do! Article I, s
Re: (Score:2)
Congress can regulate the place and manner of holding an election, but if they don't have one, their terms expire and their seats go unfilled until the States step in.
See the analogy of the gardener. If you gave away your yard (made it his property) then HE would get the summons and the fine if the grass was too long.
Re: (Score:2)
Having the power to regulate the place and the manner, I can — with the sympathetic Executive, who has already packed, err, reformed Supreme Court [whitehouse.gov] to his liking — make myself a Congressman-for-life. With the power to appoint successors...
Do I really need to give you the possible ways to do it?
Re: (Score:2)
Sure, they could try it ILLEGALY and hope the military sides with them, but according to the Constitution, their terms expire in due time even if no successor has been elected. But if we're talking about a coup, then nothing in the constitution or other laws of the land are relevant (unless the military does NOT side with them and they go on trial).
As for the example, note who the liability falls upon.
Re: (Score:2)
Why not? They do for the BATFE.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, no. That's not at all what the MMWA says. It's pretty short, perhaps you should read it, and give specific citations when making claims about what it says. Manufacturers can require only authorized services and replacement parts are used, _as long as they are "provided without charge
Re: (Score:2)
By not permitting the warranty to be voided just because of 3rd party parts or service, that leaves the manufacturer having to prove that the failure was induced by the 3rd party parts or service. Kinda like if I tell you to flip a coin and heads or edge don't count. Guess what's left?
Re: (Score:2)
That's not what the law says. As I've already pointed out, a manufacturer can require the use of their own parts and service, if the parts/service are provided free under the warranty terms. So, some warranties absolutely can be "voided" by the use of 3rd party stuff. The MMWA says a manufacturer can't require use of a part or service "which is identified by brand, trade, or corporate name". They can require use of pa
Re: (Score:2)
RTFA (or the summary for that matter) for the answers to some of your questions.
Right to obtain warranty service dep on OEM parts? (Score:2)
Related, to this, and I hope some people will give some opinion, is the idea that if I put any 3rd party HW or SW on a computer I bought (that came with a 4-5yr support contract), can they cancel service under the support contract if I install 3rd party HW or SW? (Think of a Bios memory bug that only triggers when you put in a 2nd
processor that shuts down 20% of your memory). Or another BIOS feature that kicks in when you install a 2nd 90W (max) processor that forces your system to operate at lowest perf
Re:What's wrong, exactly? (Score:5, Informative)
Any warning like those little "If opened warranty is void" stickers on electronics are non-enforceable in the US. It is only if the manufacturer can prove that substandard parts or repair attempts damaged the parts of the machine covered under warranty that a warranty becomes void. Which doesn't stop those stickers or warnings from being placed. After all, if their usage let a company avoid even 5% of warranty claims the stickers become well worth it. As for the law in question, go read the 1975 Magnusson-Moss Warranty Act.
Now, the McDonalds situation is a bit different. If a McDonalds franchisee repairs the Taylor ice cream/milkshake machine through a third party it does legally void the service contract. But it would not void any actual warranty. The reason the FTC is getting involved is not because of the existence of the service contracts but because the machines that the McDonalds Corporation forces their franchisees to purchase are engineered to throw error codes and force a service call. We know this because the 4 other large fast food companies that buy Taylor ice cream/milkshake machines but do not have mandated service contracts with Taylor don't have NEARLY the "failure" rate of the McDonalds machines.
Re: (Score:1)
Except that it is explicitly forbidden by law.
IANAL but Title 15, Chapter 50, Section 2306 states:
"Nothing in this chapter shall be construed to prevent a supplier or warrantor from entering into a service contract with the consumer in addition to or in lieu of a written warranty if such contract fully, clearly, and conspicuously discloses its terms and conditions in simple and readily understood language."
I take that to mean that if McDonalds has a service contract that forbids them from repairing the McFlurry machine themselves then it's perfectl
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
So the seller is ALLOWED to OFFER a service contract. That's fine. If it's turned down, they still have to honor any warranty, including implied warranties. The shady part is trying to rig the machines so that only they can effectively service them at all. That could run afoul of various anti-monopoly legislation.
Re: (Score:2)
It's called "anti-trust". I heard that McDonalds corproate gets kickbacks from the McFlurry manufacturer for every service visit.... and McDonalds *requires* the machines be installed by franchisees, at the franchisee's expense. It's basically legal pick pocketing.
Re: (Score:2)
"You heard"? From whom? Citation needed.
Re: (Score:2)
"You heard"? From whom? Citation needed.
How about, "Many people are saying..."
[ That's apparently good enough for 47% of the country, w/o any further supporting evidence. ]
Re: What's wrong, exactly? (Score:2)
So when the machine is broken it's actually remotely disabled due to failure to pay the subscription fee.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not sure, whether Federal Government should be inserting itself in between manufacturers and individual consumers. But for it to "investigate" — even if "preliminarily" — an aspect of a relationship between two major corporations, well, that's a certain mission creep [wikipedia.org].
Since almost every McDonald's location is franchised owned (93.2% as of June 30, 2021 [mcdonalds.com]) , it's more an abusive relationship between a major corporation and individuals.
This stance seems perfectly reasonable, actually... At least, on the surface.
How is that reasonable? Let's apply this reasoning to something that isn't a McFlurry machine like an automobile. Imagine if you attempt to fix (replace) a broken tail light cover. How is it perfectly reasonable for the car manufacturer to then completely void the car's entire warranty? Replacing a broken tail light doesn't affect the powertra
Re: (Score:2)
Franchises aren't owned by individuals. They are owned by corporations too.
I have very little idea, how these machines operate. But, I'm sure, there are electronics, that can be shorted by the wet-fingers of someone, who just washed hands after taking out the used-up grease. There may be also be delicate moving parts to break, or even static ones to damage — like the soft thin grates around air-conditi
Re: (Score:2)
Good For McDonald's To Be the Test Case (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Wait, how could a McDonald's stop a highway without bribing politicians. Now tell me again why you want those corrupt bribable politicians running operating state-owned enterprises that have a monopoly?
the McDonald on the skyway is gone now! (Score:2)
the McDonald on the skyway is gone now!
Re: (Score:2)
You assume the McDonald's wasn't being bypassed deliberately so as to generate unofficial income for "the deciders".
Bigger question: How do I acquire one at home? (Score:2)
Is the only way to purchase a McDonald's franchise license and setup a private "mcdonalds" behind my garage?
No. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It's also around $1M for a franchise fee.
And if you're considering one, you better be willing to sell the land the restaurant sits on to McD's.
McD's is not a fast foot joint. They're a landlord. Franchisees are held to their agreements not just by contr
Re: (Score:2)
Your garage is almost certainly in a mapped region sold to some franchisee nearby already.
Unless you're deep in the Yukon or Sahara or Siberia, your land is probably covered.
This video explains the fiasco (Score:4, Informative)
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=... [youtube.com]
I'm sure by now franchise owners would rather not offer McFlurries as it's just not profitable enough to have to deal with this shit. But I'm sure they are forced to pr. franchise agreement.
Re: (Score:1)
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=... [youtube.com]
I'm sure by now franchise owners would rather not offer McFlurries as it's just not profitable enough to have to deal with this shit. But I'm sure they are forced to pr. franchise agreement.
Which is probably why they are broken all the time. Given the cost, it is not worth the franchisee's while to repair them. The true free market in operation. Everyone wins except the consumer who can not get what they want.
Re: (Score:2)
But they find alternatives, they buy from competing chains when possible, McD loses customers, follows one of two paths:
It changes its ways and reduces the true cost of offering whatever junk these machines make. And slowly wins customers back. Or decides there are enough places where there is no alternative, and that profit is enough and follows a vicious cycle of bad service in some areas, people who have no alternatives continue to pay high for
Re: This video explains the fiasco (Score:2)
Actually, the franchises do get them 'repaired' but the machines always have that locking up problem. Did you see the video? Do you expect even the manager to be able to dechipher that giant manual, or have access to the 'secret' diagnostics menu? Believe me, your local Mickie Dees franchise isn't profiting at all from all this. If anything, it's a money pit, and they are the ones who have to deal with the "Worldstar" fights (and resulting damage) that get touched off by these defective by design machines
Th
Wired's article... (Score:2)
https://www.wired.com/story/th... [wired.com] as well.
The REAL Reason McDonalds Ice Cream Machines Are A (Score:2)
Someone else has been watching youtube.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
Re: (Score:1)
That guy needs to investigate the right to repair a Flowbee.
and is mcdonalds corporate getting kickbacks from (Score:2)
and is mcdonalds corporate getting kickbacks from Taylor?
Can they just tell McDonalds franchise if you don't use Taylor we can just take your franchise away (aka the LAND) and give you $0
Re: (Score:2)
Most certainly yes.
Taylor was created by McD's to build the machines after all. No doubt there is money going back to corporate from Taylor - either through shares and dividends or just returning money to the owners.
And yes, if you violate any term of the franchisee agreement, McD's can shut you down. Including using altern
Re: (Score:2)
Run the DMCA politicians out on a rail (Score:3)
Really, NO AMERICAN CITIZEN except the rich and crooked ever wanted the DMCA, and I don't care how the "system" is set up.
The DMCA needs to be ruled unconstitutional and taken out of law at once. And we need to fix our broken system so no law like this can ever be passed again.
I know the chimers who I suspect are astroturfing for those megacorps will go "but but but but". I've already heard it. The DMCA clearly violates the will of the American people, and unlike laws ment to protect human rights, this one was a big "fuck you" to the entire country, and an abuse of the mechanisms that enabled civil rights laws to be past against the prejudiced majority in the mid 20th century. It's sickening and I am surprised the companies who pushed the DMCA were not called out on this.
Re: Run the DMCA politicians out on a rail (Score:2)
Correction
"passed against the will of the prejudiced majority in the mid 20th century."