Our standard

Vetting a warranty or service-contract provider means checking it against real, checkable regulatory requirements and public evidence — not a subjective "quality" score. Because US and Canadian law diverge sharply here, every point below states plainly which jurisdiction's rule it's checking and how the check differs across the border, rather than forcing one checklist to silently mean two different things.

Correction (14 September 2026): this page previously cited Texas home warranty regulation as "Occupations Code chapters 1303 and 1304." Chapter 1303 (the former Residential Service Company Act) was repealed by House Bill 1560, 87th Legislature (2021), and folded into Chapter 1304 (the Service Contract Regulatory Act) — the same bill that moved oversight from the Texas Real Estate Commission to the Texas Department of Licensing and Regulation effective September 1, 2021. The citations below, and our new Texas deep-dive, now reflect Chapter 1304 only.

Why a home warranty or auto service contract isn't a "warranty" at all

The single most important legal fact in this industry is also the most commonly missed: what's marketed as an "extended warranty" — whether for a car or a home's furnace — is not a warranty as defined by US federal law, because it's bought separately from the product it covers. The FTC says this directly in its own consumer guidance: a service contract "is a separate agreement, purchased separately, backed by whoever sold it to you," unlike a manufacturer's warranty, which comes with the product and is backed by the manufacturer. A home warranty and a vehicle service contract are both, legally, service contracts — not warranties — even though almost nobody in the industry markets them that way.

The legal grounding this standard is built on

United States — written product warranties. The Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act (15 U.S.C. §§ 2301–2312, enacted 1975) requires a written warranty on a consumer product to be labeled "full" or "limited," made available to a shopper before purchase (FTC Rule, 16 C.F.R. Part 702), and free of prohibited tie-in requirements — a manufacturer generally can't void a warranty just because you used an independent repair shop or a non-OEM part, absent an FTC waiver. It also creates a private right of action (15 U.S.C. § 2310(d)) letting a consumer sue and recover attorney's fees, subject to a $50,000 aggregate amount-in-controversy threshold for federal jurisdiction. None of this governs service contracts directly — it governs the separate, narrower category of written product warranties.

United States — service contracts (home warranty and vehicle service contract regulation). There is no single federal service-contract statute. States regulate service contracts one of two ways: as insurance-like products requiring a state insurance-department license — California's Home Protection Companies, licensed by the California Department of Insurance under Insurance Code §§ 12740–12764, and Florida's home warranty associations, licensed by the Florida Office of Insurance Regulation under Florida Statutes chapter 634, Part II, are the two clearest examples — or as a separate "residential service company" / "service contract provider" category outside the insurance code entirely, typically requiring registration and a funded reserve, a reimbursement-insurance policy, or a surety bond so claims can actually be paid for the contract's full term. Texas is the clearest example of the second model: House Bill 1560 (87th Legislature, 2021) repealed the old Residential Service Company Act (former Occupations Code Chapter 1303) and folded residential service contracts into Chapter 1304, the Service Contract Regulatory Act, moving oversight from the Texas Real Estate Commission to the Texas Department of Licensing and Regulation effective September 1, 2021 — see our Texas deep-dive for exactly what changed. Which regime applies, and exactly what it requires, genuinely differs state by state — this is point-by-point, state-verified work, not one national rule.

Canada — no federal equivalent. There is no Canadian federal Magnuson-Moss analog. Consumer protection for warranties and service contracts is provincial. Ontario's Consumer Protection Act, 2002 and Quebec's Consumer Protection Act are the two most developed regimes, and Quebec's is actively changing: amendments establishing a statutory "legal warranty of good working order" for categories of consumer goods, plus mandatory pre-sale disclosure before a merchant offers an extended warranty, take effect October 5, 2026. Coverage and disclosure rules vary meaningfully by province and need to be verified province by province as this site's Canadian coverage grows — never assumed to mirror Ontario or Quebec elsewhere.

Canada — a structurally different "home warranty." What Canadians usually mean by "new home warranty" is a mandatory, statutory builder-defect warranty tied to new-home construction, required by law in Quebec, Ontario, Alberta, and British Columbia (administered in Ontario by Tarion, and by comparable programs elsewhere) — typically covering workmanship/materials, building-envelope/systems, and major structural defects on fixed multi-year windows (Tarion's own published windows are one/two/seven years). That is not the same product as a US-style home warranty, and doesn't compete with it directly. A private, purchased home-systems-and-appliance warranty comparable to the US product does also exist in Canada — sold by companies like Canadian Home Shield and, notably, by SGI Canada (a licensed insurer) under its Home Systems Protection product — but it sits alongside the statutory new-home programs, not in place of them, and the two are easy to conflate.

The checklist

Contract terms and exclusions disclosed in plain language before purchaseIn the US, this is the Magnuson-Moss pre-sale-availability requirement (16 C.F.R. Part 702) where a written warranty applies, and the equivalent state service-contract-disclosure requirement otherwise; in Quebec, this is squarely what the incoming (October 5, 2026) extended-warranty disclosure regulation requires. Fails if a full sample contract, including exclusions, isn't available to a shopper before they pay.
Cancellation and refund rights actually honoredChecked against the specific right that applies — a state-mandated free-look/cancellation period for a service contract, or, in Quebec from October 5, 2026, the specific remedy of a fee-free, full-refund cancellation right when a merchant fails the mandatory extended-warranty disclosure.
State (US) or provincial (Canada) licensing/registration verified directlyChecked against the state's own insurance-department or licensing-agency roster (e.g. California DOI, Florida OIR, Texas TDLR) or the equivalent Canadian provincial regulator, for every state or province a provider actually sells in — not just its home state, and not taken from the provider's own claim.
Funded-claims mechanism verified where the state requires oneA reserve account, reimbursement-insurance policy, or surety bond sized to cover outstanding contract obligations, checked against the specific mechanism that state's law requires rather than assumed from the provider's own marketing.
Pre-existing-condition exclusion disclosed plainly, and applied as writtenThis is the single most common real-world complaint pattern in this industry — a claim denied after an inspection finds "prior wear," sometimes without the provider having inspected the item at enrollment at all. Fails if the exclusion isn't stated in plain terms before purchase, or if a provider's complaint record shows a pattern of invoking it in ways inconsistent with its own stated terms.
Waiting-period disclosureThe delay between enrollment and eligible-claim coverage — commonly 15 to 30 days for home warranties — is stated plainly, not buried.
No guaranteed-approval or no-exclusions marketing claimsA legitimate provider doesn't need to imply every claim is automatically covered; this fails on marketing language that contradicts the provider's own contract exclusions.
Named company, real address, working contact, and the actual underlying entity identifiedThe same "who is actually on the other end of this contract" check the sister sites apply, adapted for an industry where a consumer-facing brand is often a marketer for a separate contract administrator or reimbursement insurer — we identify and check that entity specifically, not just the brand name.
Complaint-pattern data disclosed, sourced from a public recordBBB complaint volume and pattern, and, where obtainable, state insurance-department or attorney-general complaint data, reported honestly — volume and pattern, not proof of wrongdoing on any single complaint, the same evidentiary caution the sister Credit Record site applies to CFPB complaint data.
State or provincial enforcement history disclosedAny open or settled licensing action, consent order, or attorney-general action against the provider or its principals, checked against the actual regulator's own record, current or historical.

A provider is checked against the sub-points that actually apply to its jurisdiction and product — a US vehicle-service-contract provider isn't scored against a Quebec-specific disclosure rule it has no obligation under, and an inapplicable point is marked N/A with a stated reason rather than silently skipped or forced into a pass.

What a passing score means — and doesn't

Passing every applicable point means a provider's disclosed terms, licensing status, and public complaint/enforcement record didn't show a violation of these specific, checkable facts as of the date we looked. It is not a guarantee any specific claim you file will be approved — no legitimate provider can promise that, since real exclusions genuinely exist — and it isn't a claim we've reviewed every contract version a provider has ever issued. See the Register for how findings are dated and re-checked.

Why this is checkable at all

A provider either holds the license its state requires or it doesn't. A contract either discloses the pre-existing-condition exclusion before you pay or it doesn't. A BBB complaint pattern is a public number, not a judgment call. That's what makes a standard like this possible without collapsing into opinion — the same reasoning the sister Credit Record and Peptide Record sites apply to their own categories.