How do manufacturers sell to states with strict laws

I've been wondering what the difference is on this. My question can be applied to any state like PA, FL, etc. Only the states that have VLT limits on every window. So MI is out on this one.

in short, here's the situation:

Shop owners in some states (ie: florida) can get fined for installing film, or sued by people for installing the film on cars that dont comply with state tint laws, because it's !llegal, and too dark... A waiver doesn't suffice here. Shop owner is liable.

Manufactureres aren't liable for anything because on the box of film, it basically says that they dont want the film installed illegally.


My question is this... Florida doesn't allow any darker than 15% on any window according to the TD list of state laws. So, why isn't a manufacturer also liable for any incident involving tint as a cause? I see it as the manufacturer knowingly sold someone 5% film, even though the state's law doesn't allow 5% in any case.

To me, this is the same situation as a tinter knowingly installing !llegal film. Manufacturers knowingly (key) sold !llegal tint to an installer, who therefore, installed it illegally.

anyways, it just seems like it would be !llegal for a manufacturer to sell tint to a state like florida, or PA especially with their ROUGH tint laws. I feel bad for you guys.

probably a stupid question, but, i'm not sure what the laws say about this, and figured id ask.

Good Question! 6% film can be installed on Limo's and on the any window behind the front row on MPV's (multi purpose vehicles) in Florida. So manufacturers can legally sell the film to the shops. It is the owners responsibility to enforce the laws not the manufacturers. Here is a crazy example. It is !llegal to make bombs but it is legal to buy fertilizer, so is it the maker of the fertilizers fault if someone misuses their product? Probably Not!

Well, making bombs with fertilizer is using the product for something other than it's intended purpose. last time i checked, automotive window tint's purpose was to be installed on cars ;)

i see what your saying, but i still feel like mfgr's still have a role in this, since they're knowingly selling film to a state that's laws dont allow for it.

interesting post Will, sorry I havent called ya back. We had a death in the fam, I'll give you a shout later in the week bro!

why to they have car that go over the speed limit..its against the law to do it..and if someone does it..and gets a ticket..are they going to sue the car manny?

no, but they're also not going to sue the dealer they bought it from, or the guy that sold it to them.

can you put 5% auto window film on single pane glass on a business?..or older homes with single pane glass?

how many people have? why market it as "automotive" then? another question i would have for mfgr's is do they have warranty cards for illegally tinted vehicles, based on individual states tint laws? good example though. i didnt think of that angle

He is saying it is legal to put it on some vehicles!

As far as I know manufacturers leave all these issues with installers. They just make - and print in all their materilas that they are non-responsible for !llegal installation.
And that's right. Anything can be used legal or !llegal. You can buy knife to cut cheese, but some people can kill using this knife. And manufacturer or supermarket can't be responsible.
IMHO.

I feel the same way, Its like a few years ago law makers tried to pass a law, when you bought a gun and if it was used in a crime, the person that sold it to the criminal was in violation of the law also.

interesting posts all. i just thought of another question after reading tint phantom and leos posts.

it's legal for a car to have tint on any window if it isnt driven on public roads, like a true show car. so, if people get tint illegally, can a shop owner have something signed that just says, "my ______ name____ car is a show car, and is not meant to be driven on public roads?" something like that anyway?

or... if a consumer can sue a shop owner who has his customer sign a waiver, can a shop owner sue the manufacturer for knowingly selling the owner illegally dark films because they printed on their box?

If you read the fine print on most manufacturers warranty cards, the warranty is null and void if the film is installed illegally in your state. Therefore, any film installed in New York other than 70% or above on a car carries no warranty. Most installers there do not even realize this.

Good question.... The manufacturer could not be sued, since the film they sold IS legal to install somewhere in your state. Almost all mannys sell 5% under the automotive line due to the type of manufacture. You can still install it on flat glass, so it is legal to sell to you. It is in your hands that the !llegal action would possibly take place, so the liability falls directly on you. ( and the end user)

Why can’t the industry require documentation on where product is applied? Paperwork for sure and cost involved but……………. It would settle this issue to a large degree. It would also keep some people out of the business because of the cost as well as the ones who just apply dark papas. Pipe dream but it would work if the law stated the MANIFACTURE had to keep track of where product went. VKool used to charge me more if I put the same film on a car than a building and I’m pretty sure we had to provide the documentation for the price, been several years.

Sun-Gard prints that on the box as well.

in my opinion if they dont know that they are tinting illegally and not telling their customers they dont have a manufactures warranty..i wouldnt consider that to be very poor business ethics..and just plain bad business.

That's just trick not to be responsible. In reality - IMHO - no MFG pay attention legal or !llegal installation. Their work - make and sell. Installation - on Your side. But in case any judges or other problems - O, yes, we informed on box (warranty card, website) that it is !llegal.
That instead stupid - and f***ing old - regulation changing. ...FA's are created for lobby.
But what do they lobby????
Yes we all know what is legal and what is !llegal - but we all don't know WHY????
WHY 70% is OK
But 50% is dangerous????
Did anybody heard normal and smart explanation?
May be I don't heard?
Or may be when sun shine eyes direct it is not dangerous for driving?

i just don't know. in all of my dealings with PA legislators and police, whenever i mention window tinting, they automatically assume i'm proposing "dark tint."

i honestly think that its possible many legislators don't realise that 70% VLT as measured on an automotive window is effectively clear glass. and while the numbers 70 and 50 (and 40 and 35) seem different, the visual perception is not. this is why demonstrations are necessary to promote more tint-friendly legislation in draconian states (like mine).