California Lemon Law for New Cars: Buybacks and Consumer Rights
Purchasing or leasing a new vehicle should provide reliability, safety, and peace of mind. Unfortunately, some California consumers find themselves repeatedly returning to the dealership for warning lights, engine failures, electrical problems, transmission concerns, battery defects, or other issues that the dealership cannot permanently repair.
California’s Lemon Law may require the manufacturer to repurchase or replace a new vehicle when it cannot repair a warranty-covered defect after a reasonable number of opportunities. The law does not require the vehicle to completely stop working, and consumers do not necessarily need four repair attempts before they may have a valid claim.
The strength of a California Lemon Law claim generally depends on the nature of the defect, its effect on the vehicle, the number of repair opportunities provided to the manufacturer, and the total time the vehicle has been unavailable because of warranty repairs.
The Problem
California’s Lemon Law is primarily contained in the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act. When a manufacturer or its authorized repair facility cannot repair a new motor vehicle to conform to the manufacturer’s express warranty after a reasonable number of attempts, the manufacturer may be required to promptly replace the vehicle or provide restitution to the buyer.
A vehicle does not need to be completely inoperable to qualify. The defect must substantially impair the vehicle’s use, value, or safety when viewed from the perspective of a reasonable person in the consumer’s position.
Common qualifying problems may include:
Engine stalling, hesitation, loss of power, excessive oil consumption, transmission slipping, harsh shifting, brake defects, steering concerns, electrical failures, repeated warning lights, charging problems, reduced electric-vehicle range, battery failures, overheating, water intrusion, suspension problems, and persistent noises or vibrations.
The manufacturer generally must be given a reasonable opportunity to repair the problem. However, there is no universal rule stating that every consumer must present the vehicle exactly four times.
A serious safety defect may require fewer repair attempts than an intermittent comfort or convenience concern. A vehicle that has spent an extended period at the dealership may also qualify even when the dealership performed several repair procedures during a single lengthy visit.
The Manufacturer’s Obligations
The manufacturer’s obligations usually begin when the consumer presents the vehicle to an authorized dealership for a warranty repair and accurately describes the problem.
Dealerships frequently tell consumers that they cannot duplicate the concern, that the vehicle is operating as designed, or that no diagnostic trouble codes were stored. Those statements do not necessarily defeat a Lemon Law claim.
Intermittent defects are common. A vehicle may stall, lose power, display a warning light, or malfunction only under certain driving conditions. The dealership’s inability to reproduce the defect during a short test drive does not mean the problem did not occur.
What matters is whether the consumer repeatedly reported a legitimate warranty-covered concern and gave the manufacturer a reasonable opportunity to address it.
California law also contains a rebuttable Lemon Law presumption for certain vehicles. Generally, the presumption may apply when, during the first 18 months after delivery or before the vehicle reaches 18,000 miles:
The manufacturer or its authorized repair facility made two or more attempts to repair a defect that is likely to cause death or serious bodily injury;
The manufacturer or its authorized repair facility made four or more attempts to repair the same substantial defect; or
The vehicle was out of service for warranty repairs for more than 30 cumulative calendar days.
These thresholds create a rebuttable presumption; they are not absolute prerequisites for every Lemon Law claim. A vehicle may still qualify even when the defect developed after 18 months, after 18,000 miles, or without meeting one of the numerical thresholds.
The essential question remains whether the manufacturer received a reasonable number of opportunities to repair a substantial warranty-covered defect.
Recall and Technical Service Bulletin Issues
A vehicle does not need to be subject to a recall or technical service bulletin to qualify under California’s Lemon Law.
A recall may nevertheless provide important evidence that the manufacturer recognizes a safety problem affecting a particular component or group of vehicles. Similarly, a technical service bulletin may show that the manufacturer knows about a recurring condition and has instructed dealerships to perform a particular diagnostic procedure, software update, or component replacement.
However, a recall or bulletin does not automatically establish a Lemon Law violation. The manufacturer must ordinarily be given an opportunity to perform the available repair.
A stronger claim may develop when:
The recall remedy is repeatedly unsuccessful;
The necessary parts remain unavailable for an unreasonable period;
The dealership performs the manufacturer’s recommended procedure but the defect returns;
The manufacturer issues multiple software updates without correcting the condition; or
The vehicle remains unsafe or unusable while the consumer waits for a remedy.
Consumers should ask the dealership to identify all recalls, campaigns, technical service bulletins, software updates, and manufacturer communications that may relate to the reported problem.
Symptoms That May Support a New-Car Lemon Law Claim
New-car Lemon Law claims frequently involve one or more of the following circumstances:
The same warning light repeatedly returns after being cleared.
The vehicle stalls, hesitates, loses power, or enters reduced-power mode.
The transmission shifts harshly, slips, jerks, or refuses to engage.
The electric vehicle will not charge, loses range, or develops a high-voltage battery warning.
The dealership repeatedly installs replacement parts without resolving the concern.
The manufacturer says that parts are backordered with no reliable repair date.
The vehicle spends several weeks or months at the dealership.
The dealership closes the repair order even though the consumer reports that the problem remains.
The manufacturer tells the consumer that the condition is normal despite evidence that it affects safety, reliability, or value.
The consumer should describe the symptoms consistently and specifically during every visit. Instead of stating only that the vehicle “drives badly,” the repair order should identify what occurs, when it occurs, how frequently it occurs, and whether any warning messages appear.
Consumers should review the repair order before leaving the dealership. If the document does not accurately describe the complaint, the consumer should request that it be corrected.
What Can a Consumer Recover?
When a manufacturer is required to repurchase a qualifying vehicle, restitution can include the amount paid or payable for the vehicle, subject to permissible statutory deductions. Depending on the circumstances, recoverable amounts may include the down payment, monthly payments, remaining loan balance, sales tax, registration charges, license fees, and certain manufacturer-installed options.
The manufacturer may generally subtract a mileage offset based on the consumer’s use of the vehicle before the first repair attempt for the defect that ultimately gave rise to the repurchase.
Consumers may also be entitled to recover qualifying incidental damages, including reasonable towing, rental-car, and repair-related expenses. California law expressly identifies certain official fees and incidental damages as part of the available relief.
Instead of restitution, the consumer may request a replacement vehicle. A replacement generally requires the agreement of both parties regarding the replacement terms.
Some manufacturers also offer a “cash-and-keep” settlement. Under that arrangement, the consumer retains the vehicle and receives money in exchange for resolving the claim. Consumers should carefully evaluate these offers because the settlement agreement may release present and future claims involving the vehicle.
If the manufacturer’s failure to comply with its obligations was willful, the consumer may seek a civil penalty of up to two times the consumer’s actual damages. A prevailing buyer may also recover reasonable attorney’s fees and costs under the Song-Beverly Act.
How to Proceed
California consumers experiencing repeated new-car problems should take the following steps:
Present the vehicle to an authorized dealership whenever the defect occurs and request a written repair order.
Clearly describe every symptom, warning message, noise, vibration, or driving condition associated with the problem.
Review each repair order to confirm that it accurately states the complaint, the dealership’s findings, the work performed, the mileage, and the dates the vehicle entered and left the dealership.
Preserve the purchase or lease agreement, warranty booklet, registration, payment records, towing invoices, rental-car receipts, photographs, videos, emails, text messages, and manufacturer communications.
Keep a separate timeline listing every repair visit and every day the vehicle was unavailable.
Avoid relying solely on verbal statements from dealership employees or manufacturer representatives.
Do not assume that the vehicle must have four repair attempts or be presented within the first 18 months or 18,000 miles to qualify.
Speak with a California Lemon Law attorney before accepting a trade-in allowance, cash settlement, extended warranty, or manufacturer release.
California also has special procedural rules for manufacturers that elected to participate in the framework enacted through AB 1755 and related legislation. Those procedures can include a pre-suit written notice containing the consumer’s name, vehicle identification number, repair history, and demand for restitution or replacement. California maintains a list of manufacturers that elected to use these procedures.
The applicable filing deadline may depend on the manufacturer, the vehicle’s warranty, the original delivery date, and whether the manufacturer opted into the newer procedures. Consumers should therefore avoid delaying an evaluation merely because the vehicle remains under warranty.
Call Valero Law
A new vehicle that repeatedly returns to the dealership may be more than an inconvenience. Continued engine, transmission, electrical, battery, braking, steering, or safety problems can substantially reduce the vehicle’s reliability and resale value.
Valero Law represents California consumers in claims involving defective cars, trucks, sport utility vehicles, electric vehicles, and other warranty-covered vehicles. We review the complete repair history, determine which California Lemon Law procedures apply, and pursue available relief directly from the manufacturer.
California’s Lemon Law may require the manufacturer to pay the consumer’s reasonable attorney’s fees and costs in a successful claim.
Contact Valero Law for a consultation if your new vehicle continues to experience problems after repeated warranty repair visits.
This article is provided for general informational purposes and does not constitute legal advice. Every claim depends on its particular facts, repair history, warranty coverage, delivery date, manufacturer, and applicable procedural requirements.