If someone uses Idemitsu brand WS fluid vs Toyota WS fluid, it's doubtful that someone would run into a warranty issue. But if someone substitutes old school Dexron or similar in their late model car and smokes the clutches and the dealership figures that out, the warranty would likely be voided due to incompatible fluids.
(note: my reply is not directed at ripcord, but as a general answer to BITOG overall)
It is of benefit to educate oneself on the actual nuances of the law and its application. The topic of warranty, just as with filters, engine oils, and anything else in the USA, needs to be understood as a function of the Magnuson/Moss Warranty Act, as applied by the FTC. (this won't apply to other countries, unless they have a similar law).
The FTC gets its authority from the US Code:
The FTC applies the law in this manner:
Table of Contents State law (the Uniform Commercial Code). Sections 2-314 & 2-315. Section 2-313. Introduction For the full legal texts listed below, consult the supplement to this manual. Understanding the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act
www.ftc.gov
Kaput. Kerflooey. On the fritz. Regardless of what you call it, when products break down, consumers have a choice. They can go back to the dealer.
www.ftc.gov
In addition to the FTC website info, there are case-law decisions and arbitration prescendents which have been set.
Now, what isn't covered under law or FTC ruling is the fact that while an OE can be forced to cover something, that enforcement often comes after months (perhaps years) of delay. Those delays are not a problem for companies with deep pockets, teams of engineers, and a horde of lawyers. Meanwhile, your (insert product here) is broken and awaiting fixing. If you want the (product) back on the road ASAP, then you have to front the money yourself and hope that your case (litigation/arbitration/mediation) falls in your favor somewhere down the road.
Also, the burden-of-proof topic comes into play here. If you use an aftermarket product which neither the OE nor the aftermarket supplier recommend for the application, then YOU (the user) will probably have to prove to some independent panel (judge/jury/arbiter) that your selection of the product was legitimately acceptable for the application.
EXAMPLES ...
- If you decide that a light-grade lubricant intended for sewing machines is also good for your axle in your one-ton diesel under heavy towing loads, you will have to show how and why that choice was a good one.
- If you decide to put a 110v rated motor into your furnace where the application calls for 220v prime drivers, you will have to show why that choice was not a bad one
- If you put under-rated passenger car tires onto your F-350, and subsequently load it down to max payload while running down the highway at illegal speeds, and the resulting blow-outs cause damage and/or personal injury, you will have to show why that tire selection wasn't the cause of failure.
Most simply put ...
The M/M Act covers the reasonable use of products for intended applications; it is not a carte-blanche excuse to do stupid things.
In the case of the OPs question, if the RL product is intended for the WS applications, it would be reasonable to apply the M/M Act provisions. If not, that is a risk that opens a very large void which would need to be settled by a third-party entity, because it's likely that the OE and aftermarket vendor will attempt to deny coverage.
