Nissan Leaf Charging Problems and the California Lemon Law
What’s the Problem
A number of owners of the Nissan LEAF in California are reporting that their vehicles—particularly those subject to a battery-charging or cell defect recall—have been repurchased under the state’s lemon law. In one forum post the owner writes:
“A while ago I saw a post on here where someone was able to get their Leaf repurchased by Nissan due to the ongoing battery charging recall.” Reddit
The defect in question involves reduced usable battery capacity, inability to fast-charge reliably (especially via CHAdeMO), and a lack of a timely permanent fix despite the safety recall.
Because driving range and charging functionality are essential to an EV’s utility, these issues threaten the fundamental use and value of the vehicle. Under California’s lemon law, a vehicle that fails to perform as warranted may qualify for repurchase or cash settlement.
Allegations
Among the key allegations in these LEAF-related cases:
That Nissan issued a recall (for example via campaign R24B2) that limits or prohibits use of fast-charging (CHAdeMO) on affected units, which restricts long-distance travel.
That the remedy has been delayed, leaving owners without a full fix or meaningful repair for extended periods. Buyers report months of wait time.
That the vehicle’s diminished utility (reduced charging, possible fire risk, etc.) deprives the owner of what they paid for: a reliable EV.
That the buyback or lemon law repurchase process should be available even though the vehicle is still technically under manufacturer warranty—but the failure to get a timely resolution triggers lemon law rights.
That the manufacturer may attempt to offset the buyback calculation with a significant “usage fee” based on miles driven, diminishing the repurchase value. For example:
“They charged me a usage fee of $1,168… after 57,000 miles on it.”
Recall / TSB
The key recall relevant here is the battery/charging recall for certain 2019-2020 Nissan LEAF models built in the Tennessee plant and using CHAdeMO fast-charging. Owners on the forum report that the official remedy is delayed. For example:
“What recall?” “They just told me there’s no fix yet and that I need to continue waiting.”
Under California’s lemon law framework (via the song-Beverly Act and associated statutes), if a vehicle has a defect that substantially impairs its use, value or safety, and the manufacturer fails to repair it after a reasonable number of attempts (or the vehicle is out of service for too long), the consumer may seek repurchase.
In the forum post titled “California Lemon Law Buyback”:
“By California lemon law rules (used by many states) the car’s lifespan is presumed to be 120,000 miles, and the reduction in value is the …”
Again, the recall/TSB in this case highlights that the defect directly impacts core EV functionality (fast-charging and battery durability) which supports a lemon-law argument.
Symptoms
Owners report multiple symptoms indicative of the defect and supporting a lemon-law claim:
Significantly reduced fast-charging ability or inability to use CHAdeMO charging even though the connector is present.
Rapid or unexpected battery capacity loss, or the system indicating reduced battery health when scanned via tools like LeafSpy.
Safety or reliability issues such as battery cell failure or recall-related warnings (for example “Service EV System” errors).
Inability to take longer trips due to charging limitations, which was a core part of the vehicle’s advertised utility as an EV. For example one owner:
“My car is Leaf (2020 SV Plus) is currently in the shop for the dreaded Service EV System error … I am going to start the process of calling consumer affairs to get the ball rolling on a potential buyback.”
Extended time out of service waiting for parts or repairs that never complete or provide full remedy.
Because these issues go beyond ordinary wear and instead affect core EV use and value, they bolster a lemon-law claim in California.
How to Proceed
Document Issues: Keep detailed records of all repair attempts, all dealership or manufacturer communications, and specific complaints you made regarding charging, battery health or performance. When you take the vehicle in, ensure the work order explicitly notes your symptoms (e.g., “unable to fast charge via CHAdeMO as per recall,” “battery capacity loss,” etc.).
Reasonable Number of Repair Attempts: While the law doesn’t prescribe an exact number, generally if the same defect continues after four or more repair attempts or the vehicle is out of service for more than 30 cumulative days, it may qualify as a “lemon.”
Monitor Symptoms: If you experience persistent battery issues, reduced charging capability, or recall-related warnings, do not wait indefinitely. Document each incident and repair attempt and let the dealer/manufacturer know you may seek lemon law relief.
Talk to a Lemon Law Attorney, like Valero Law, APC: If your LEAF has been subject to a safety recall (battery or charging defect) and you continue to suffer performance impairment or lack of remedy, you may be entitled to a repurchase or cash settlement under California law. An experienced lemon-law attorney can evaluate your eligibility and guide you through the process.
Call Valero Law
If you own a Nissan LEAF in California that is subject to a battery or charging defect recall and you are still experiencing repeated issues or diminished charging performance, you may be entitled to compensation under the California Lemon Law.
Compensation may include:
A complete repurchase of your defective vehicle
A replacement vehicle
Or substantial cash reimbursement for damage already caused by the defect
If you’re in California and your Nissan LEAF is impacted by a battery or charging defect, call Valero Law, APC at (424) 299-4447 or complete our free Lemon Law case evaluation form today.