Harley-Davidson: The Motorcycle Company That Sold a Tune-Up Device That Voided Emissions Compliance and Voided Competitors' Warranties

Harley-Davidson Inc. agreed to pay $12 million and to recall the Super Tuner Pro, a performance tuning device it had sold to motorcycle owners, after regulators found the device caused Harley-Davidson motorcycles to emit air pollutants above the federal emissions limits applicable to those vehicles — effectively functioning as an illegal emissions defeat device when used as the company promoted it — and separately agreed to settle findings that Harley-Davidson had threatened to void customer warranties when customers used non-Harley-Davidson parts and service, a restriction that federal warranty law prohibits.DOCUMENTED

The two enforcement actions against Harley-Davidson are legally separate but illustrate a common dynamic in the performance vehicle market: manufacturers' efforts to capture aftermarket parts and service revenue from their customers by using warranty threats to discourage the use of competitor products, and the sale of performance modifications that sacrifice emissions compliance for the power improvements that performance-oriented customers seek. Both practices prioritize manufacturer financial interest over consumer rights and public interest in clean air standards.REVIEWED

The Emissions Violation

The Super Tuner Pro was marketed by Harley-Davidson as a device that allowed owners to optimize their motorcycle's fuel injection mapping for improved performance. Harley-Davidson sold the device through its dealer network and promoted it alongside its performance upgrade parts catalog as a way for owners to personalize and enhance their motorcycle's performance characteristics. Emissions testing found that motorcycles programmed with the Super Tuner Pro's performance maps emitted substantially higher levels of carbon monoxide and hydrocarbons than the same motorcycles programmed with stock settings — exceeding the federal emissions standards that had been certified for those vehicles.DOCUMENTED

Federal Clean Air Act requirements prohibit the manufacture, sale, or installation of devices that cause a vehicle to exceed its certified emissions standards. The prohibition applies to aftermarket products as well as to original equipment, and applies regardless of whether the manufacturer's intent was to defeat emissions controls or to achieve a performance improvement that has the incidental effect of exceeding emissions limits. Harley-Davidson's sale of the Super Tuner Pro through its dealer network, with marketing that promoted its use for performance improvement on the street rather than exclusively on closed-course racing applications, placed it within the Clean Air Act's prohibitions.DOCUMENTED

The Magnuson-Moss Warranty Violation

The Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act protects consumers' right to use aftermarket parts and services without losing their manufacturer warranty, with limited exceptions for cases where the manufacturer can demonstrate that the aftermarket product caused the specific defect the consumer is claiming warranty coverage for. A blanket warranty provision declaring that the use of any non-manufacturer part or service voids the entire warranty does not meet this standard — it prohibits consumers from exercising rights the law specifically protects.REVIEWED

Harley-Davidson's warranty documentation contained provisions stating that the warranty would be void if the motorcycle was serviced using non-Harley-Davidson parts or by non-Harley-Davidson authorized service facilities. This blanket restriction was communicated through warranty documents, dealer materials, and customer service interactions, creating the impression that owners who chose to use independent mechanics or non-OEM parts would lose all warranty protection — a representation that regulators found was inconsistent with the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act's consumer protections.DOCUMENTED

Harley-Davidson sold customers a tuning device that boosted performance by causing their motorcycle to emit more pollution than federal law allows — while simultaneously telling those same customers their warranty would be void if they used a competitor's products.

Consumer Rights in Vehicle Warranties

Vehicle owners — including motorcycle owners — have federally protected rights regarding aftermarket parts and service that many are not aware of. Under the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, a manufacturer cannot void a warranty solely because the owner used aftermarket parts or had the vehicle serviced by an independent mechanic. The manufacturer bears the burden of demonstrating that the specific aftermarket part or independent service caused the defect being claimed — a burden they cannot satisfy with a blanket warranty exclusion. Vehicle owners who have been denied warranty service because they used aftermarket parts or independent service should file complaints with federal consumer protection authorities and may want to consult a consumer protection attorney about the manufacturer's obligations under the Magnuson-Moss Act.REVIEWED

Owners of Harley-Davidson Super Tuner Pro devices who received warranty coverage denials based on their use of the device should monitor Harley-Davidson's recall communications and remediation process. The $12 million penalty was assessed for the emissions violations rather than for individual consumer compensation, and affected consumers seeking warranty remediation should follow up directly with Harley-Davidson's customer service function about their specific warranty claim.DOCUMENTED

What Aftermarket Parts Users Should Know

Vehicle owners who use aftermarket parts and independent service facilities for their vehicles should be aware of their Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act rights. A manufacturer whose warranty documentation contains blanket provisions threatening to void warranty coverage for use of non-OEM parts or independent service is typically overstating its legal rights under federal warranty law. When a warranty claim is denied and the manufacturer cites aftermarket parts or independent service as the basis for denial, the manufacturer bears the burden of demonstrating that the specific aftermarket component or independent service actually caused the specific defect being claimed — not merely that non-OEM parts or service were used. Vehicle owners who have warranty claims denied on these grounds should document the denial in writing, request the specific technical basis for the denial, and consider filing a complaint with the FTC and with their state attorney general's consumer protection office, which may have additional enforcement tools under state warranty law.

Have documents relevant to this story? Reach us through our tips channel.