California’s New Procedures for Lemon Law Claims and Why It Matters for Consumers With Problem Vehicles

It’s been just over a year since Governor Newsom signed Assembly Bill (AB) 1755 into law, creating a new set of procedures for consumers wishing to pursue a lemon law claim against their vehicle manufacturer. Noting the controversy surrounding the bill at the time it was signed, the governor indicated trailer legislation would soon follow, making the new procedure optional for manufacturers. That legislation, Senate Bill (SB) 26, was signed earlier this year in April, creating a dual-track process for consumers depending on whether their car’s maker opted in or out of the AB 1755 procedures.

Below we take a detailed look at the new procedure and how it compares to the pre-AB 1755 route. Either way, California law gives consumers the right to a refund or replacement when their vehicle experiences significant defects that are under warranty but can’t be repaired. For help getting justice, compensation, and a car that works, contact Nita Lemon Law Firm to put your claim on the right track with the help of a skilled and experienced California lemon law attorney.

Which vehicles and manufacturers fall into which track

Under SB 26, a manufacturer may elect (i.e., “opt in”) to be governed by the AB 1755 procedures for its vehicles sold in California. Once the election is made, the manufacturer must apply those procedures for a five-year period for vehicles covered by that election. The California Department of Consumer Affairs (DCA) maintains a public list of manufacturers that have opted in.

If a manufacturer has not opted in (or the vehicle in question falls outside the opted-in model years or scope), the claim proceeds under the existing law, i.e., the prior procedures under the Song‑Beverly Consumer Warranty Act and related statutes.

Thus, the procedure you must follow depends on whether your vehicle’s manufacturer is listed as an opt-in participant and whether your vehicle is one covered by that election.

Procedure for claims against an opt-in manufacturer

If your vehicle is covered by a manufacturer that has opted in under AB 1755/SB 26, these are the key procedural steps you must follow:

Pre-litigation written notice requirement

Under AB 1755, if you intend to file a lawsuit seeking civil penalties (in addition to a refund or replacement), you must send a written demand notice to the manufacturer at least 30 days before filing suit. The notice must include your name and contact information, the Vehicle Identification Number (VIN), a summary of the repair history and defects, and a request for repurchase or replacement.

Once the manufacturer receives the written notice, it has 30 days to respond and must, if it agrees to repurchase or replace, complete that request within 60 days. Failure to meet that timeline triggers daily penalties (e.g., $50/day) or other sanctions.

Mandatory mediation before trial (or full litigation)

If the manufacturer refuses the consumer’s request, opted-in claims under AB 1755 must go to mandatory mediation before a lawsuit can be filed. This mediation must be scheduled within 90 days of the manufacturer’s answer and conducted within 150 days of the answer. Discovery beyond limited initial disclosures is stayed pending mediation, meaning the consumer will only be able to access minimal information related to the claim that lies in the hands of the automaker.

Streamlined discovery and early disclosures

After the manufacturer files its answer, both sides must exchange initial disclosures (e.g., purchase/lease contract, repair invoices, warranty booklet, vehicle communications) within approximately 60 days. Depositions are limited (often a single deposition of no more than two hours), and broader discovery is stayed until after mediation.

Statute of limitations

Under AB 1755, the deadline to file a claim is now one year after warranty expiration but no later than six years from original delivery of the vehicle (with limited tolling for repair out‑of‑service time or notice period).

Procedure for claims against a non-opt-in manufacturer

If the manufacturer has not opted in (or your vehicle is not covered by the opt-in election), then you follow the traditional California lemon law path. The key differences between the two routes are as follows:

• No pre-suit notice requirement for non-opt-in manufacturers
• Mediation is optional at the discretion of the parties or the court, but it is not mandatory under the old system

A lawsuit under the pre-AB 1755 process proceeds like standard civil litigation, including full discovery (document requests, interrogatories, depositions without the strict limits of the streamlined track), standard timelines for motion practice, trial preparation, etc. No initial disclosures are required, but discovery is not limited by AB 1755 requirements.

The statute of limitations for claims against manufacturers that did not opt in to the new procedure is four years from the time the consumer knew or should have known their car had a defect that could not be reasonably repaired.

Strategic implications and what plaintiffs must do

For opted-in manufacturer claims:

• Act quickly: meet the written notice requirement and ensure that you send it correctly (include VIN, repair history, demand for repurchase/replacement). Failing to send or insufficient notice can eliminate the ability to seek civil penalties.

• Document everything: purchase/lease contract, warranty booklet, repair orders, invoices, all communications, rental/towing costs, out-of-service days.

• Prepare for mandatory mediation: since discovery is limited and mediation happens early (within ~150 days of answer), you must have your key documents ready.

• Be mindful of timelines: statute of limitations deadlines are tighter (one year after warranty ends or six years from delivery). Missing those deadlines means your rights may expire.

• Understand performance deadlines: if the manufacturer agrees to buyback or replace, the statute imposes 30‑60 day deadlines and potential daily penalties for delay. So watch for compliance.

For non-opt-in manufacturer claims:

• You have greater flexibility, but this also means the case may take longer, discovery may be broader, and the litigation path may be more complex.

• Still document thoroughly: even though the procedures are less compressed, you’ll face litigation and need evidence.

• Keep an eye on the statute of limitations under Song‑Beverly and any applicable tolling rules.

• Be prepared for full litigation: depositions, motion practice, discovery disputes, and trial readiness. Legal costs may be higher and the timeline longer.

Why this matters for consumers

The choice whether a manufacturer has opted in creates a two-tier system for California lemon law claims. Consumers whose vehicle is covered by an opted‑in manufacturer must navigate the fast‑track, procedural requirements under AB 1755/SB 26; consumers whose manufacturer did not opt in proceed under the older, more familiar regime.

Being unaware of which track your claim falls into can lead to missteps such as missing the written notice requirement, misunderstanding mediation timelines, or failing to file within the correct statute of limitations. All of these mistakes can jeopardize your right to a refund or replacement.

In effect, the opt-in track rewards procedural efficiency and early resolution, but it also demands stricter compliance. The traditional track gives you the full suite of civil‑litigation tools, but at the cost of a longer time to resolution and potentially more expense.

Contact Nita Lemon Law for Help With Your Claim Under Either Approach

If you believe your vehicle may qualify as a lemon, one of the first questions you should ask is: Has the manufacturer opted in under AB 1755/SB 26? You can check the published list maintained by the DCA’s ACP. Knowing the answer dictates which procedural path your claim will follow. If yes, you must prepare for the new, more compressed process: written notice, mandatory mediation, limited discovery, strict deadlines. If no, you proceed under the traditional state lemon‑law path with usual civil‑litigation procedures.

Although both tracks ultimately protect your rights under California’s Lemon Law, understanding the differences lets you move forward with full awareness of your obligations and avoid mistakes that could undermine your claim.

At the Nita Lemon Law Firm, we guide consumers through the applicable track, confirming the manufacturer’s status, helping you meet procedural requirements, gathering documentation, and advocating for your refund or replacement in negotiations, mediation, or litigation. If you suspect you have a lemon, contact us to evaluate your case and find out exactly which procedural track applies to you.