Unfortunately the courts are full of cases where judges have ruled against the written law. Chock full of 'em. Just look at the 2nd Amendment and compare that against government permits, waiting periods, age restrictions, one-gun-a-month rules, and on and on, for one example, or how Trump's "travel bans" were blocked by judges, or the entire existence of DACA, where a federal judge has ruled that it would be illegal(?) to end the program, etc.

But beyond that -- this isn't just some standard Magnuson Moss issue. The issue is that the EPA is demanding the powertrain warranty be voided if the bike is tuned using a non-compliant tuner. Which means, effectively, that the bike is put into an illegal state. Magnuson Moss may not even apply in the slightest in this case, because Harley's warranty already says that if you put the bike into a state where it doesn't comply with the laws of the territory in which it's registered, then the warranty is voided. That's been in Harley's warranty for years. The difference is now the EPA and the courts are demanding that they actually do something about it. So Magnuson Moss has really pretty much nothing to do with it. You put illegal parts on (and catless headers and catless mufflers and non-EPA-compliant "competition-use-only" parts are all (say it with me) illegal to use on public roads, and yes your powertrain warranty gets voided. Harley also already has written in its warranty that using their bikes for racing is an automatic warranty disqualifier. So how does someone argue "I'm not racing it" when they use competition-only parts?

I tend to think that a class-action lawsuit would never gain even the slightest bit of traction.

If Harley was voiding powertrain warranties for people who were legally using street-legal parts that were EPA-compliant, then yes, there'd absolutely be grounds. But that's not what they're doing. They're voiding warranties for bikes that have been taken into an illegal state, illegal to operate on public highways. I tend to think that the ground under them, in this case, is pretty solid.

Your observation is correct, but entirely irrelevant to the case at hand, because Harley isn't voiding "entire" warranties. Harley doesn't void the warranty on brakes because you used a non-compliant tuner. They are instructed by the EPA and the courts to void the POWERTRAIN warranty. Your warranty on lights and brakes and frame defects and other such items will still be valid, even if you put on Neighbor Haters and a FuelMoto 124 kit and tuned it with a PowerVision. But your powertrain warranty will be gone.

I'm not saying anybody has to like it, I'm just saying that what they're doing is legal every which way. The ONLY grounds I could see for questioning anything about it, is that if you used a noncompliant tuner to tune your bike, but you specifically tuned it to an EPA-compatible state... in that case, one could say that the warranty shouldn't be voided. But who's going to do that? As a practical matter, absolutely nobody would do that. Ever. So -- assuming you're suing in a courtroom with a reasonable and competent judge, I'd predict that any class-action lawsuit about the enforcement of the warranty will be thrown out on its ear. You simply cannot demand that a company warranty a bike when you've modified it into a state where it's not even legal to operate it. Especially when their written warranty already says, clear as day:

 

Presumably the act you refer to is the Magnuson Moss Warranty Act. I'd be careful when estimating the mileage you'll get out of it. Some background/analysis...

http://www.dummies.com/home-garden/c...rranty-intact/

Take that in conjunction with the warranty text...

Seems "the warranty clearly states the addition of [certain] aftermarket equipment automatically voids your vehicle’s warranty".

Lastly... If you are waiting for somebody to take HD on in a lawsuit over this stuff... You may have a long wait ahead of you.

 

Only the power train warranty will be voided.

 

Maybe... Or maybe it's like what the text of the warranty says...

I don't note any reference to "powertrain warranty" anywhere in the Limited Warranty text. I do note that it says that other than the Harley Davidson Limited Warranty...

More Warranty quotes:

If you install a part that the manufacturer states is for off road or competition use only, then you're probably toast.

More warranty quotes FYI...

 

When you continue to read through it states it is a violation of the act to state that you must use only their service and their parts. So I guess it will be a wait and see what happens game.
As for someone taking in H-D, there are plenty of attorneys that if there is a wrongful death or injury claim that would run full force for a shot at that much money. Just ask PGE what happens when you do not act upon known consumer safety issues.
And I could be wrong. But You let a person take their bike it for a suspected issue, that isn’t created by a modification, have their warranty voided, and let that suspected problem cause injury or death, they will be lined up for a shot at that.
With all that being said, in the past, oh we will just use the last 10 years, average 10-12k a year riding, I haven’t had to make a major warranty claim. Matter of fact I have never had to crack the engine on one. So knock on wood it will continue to to be all good. That’s what I am going with anyway

 

As far as the EPA Consent Decree goes, and using a "non-compliant" tuner, this is correct. The EPA requires Harley to void the powertrain warranty in that instance.

 

Keep it HD and SE for 2 years , how hard is that !

 

It doesn't have to even stay HD and SE. You can put on EPA-compliant parts and retain your warranty. Some S&S mufflers or exhaust, Arlen Ness Big Sucker, there are a few parts out there that are emissions compliant, either 49-state or 50-state legal, and carry a CARB certificate. But only a few. The vast majority of what I've seen out there is labeled "competition use only" or "not for street use".

So the safest bet is to stay HD/SE, but it's not a total requirement -- heck, if it was, that alone would probably violate the Magnuson Moss act...

So the summation is: keep it legal for 2 years, how hard is that...