Governor Gavin Newsom recently signed a significant amendment to California’s “Lemon Law,” known as AB 1755. This new legislation, which will take effect on April 1, aims to address the backlog of Lemon Law cases in the court system and enhance consumer rights. Under the new rules, automobile manufacturers are required to respond to written consumer complaints within 30 days—a timeline that previously had no clear deadline. Additionally, manufacturers must repair or replace defective vehicles within the same timeframe, expediting the claims process for consumers.
Despite signing the bill, Newsom’s endorsement came with a caveat. According to reports from CalMatters, he indicated that the legislation would be revisited next year, transforming the reform into a voluntary implementation for manufacturers. He expressed concern over the strong opposition from various consumer groups and most automobile manufacturers, who claimed they were not included in the negotiations. Newsom stated, “This bill has faced significant pushback because many manufacturers that build the most defective cars have not made the investment in producing high-quality vehicles.”
While the primary aim of the Lemon Law is to protect consumers from purchasing defective vehicles, Newsom’s hesitance and the modifications he requested make it appear as if AB 1755 may be flawed—essentially another “lemon.”
Criticism of AB 1755 has emerged from consumer groups and foreign automobile manufacturers, who argue that the bill was hastily crafted behind closed doors. Rosemary Shahan of Consumers for Auto Reliability and Safety remarked, “The companies that produce the most ‘lemon cars,’ yet fail to invest in quality, are the ones who stand to benefit from this bill.”
The new legislation and Newsom’s requested changes could lead to confusion for both consumers and manufacturers, ultimately impacting the workload of the courts in unpredictable ways. If the requested amendments are enacted next year, manufacturers may opt out of the reforms, leading to varying legal pathways for consumers based on the model of their purchased vehicle. The implications for court workloads remain uncertain.
Critics argue that Newsom’s signing of the bill followed by requests for amendments indicates that lawmakers should have paused to reassess AB 1755 rather than hastily changing a law that has been in place for 54 years. It may take months for the legislature to pass Newsom’s requested modifications, but by then, AB 1755 could already be in effect.
Supporters view AB 1755 as a compromise involving American auto manufacturers, consumer attorneys, and judges, intended to mitigate the rising backlog of Lemon Law cases in the courts. A key facet of the reform establishes a “pre-litigation notice” requirement, whereby consumers must inform manufacturers of issues before initiating lawsuits, providing an opportunity for direct problem resolution and reducing unnecessary litigation.
Nancy Drabble, executive director of the Consumer Attorneys of California, stated, “We appreciate Governor Newsom signing AB 1755, which implements new expedited processes that make the Lemon Law more accessible for consumers, while ensuring California remains a leader in consumer protection.”
However, critics like Shahan argue that the new bill contains provisions that could harm car buyers, such as shortening the timeline for consumers to file lawsuits and reducing the amounts they can recover, limiting their recourse under Lemon Law to six years instead of the full vehicle warranty period.
Foreign car companies have called for reforms to California’s Lemon Law but assert that the tightened timelines favor companies facing numerous cases, potentially disadvantaging those with fewer cases due to inadequate preparation time for their defenses. They also claim exclusion from negotiations. Kerry Fowler, an attorney for Honda, noted during an August 30 hearing, “We raised concerns that we believe would exacerbate existing problems rather than alleviate them, but those concerns were overlooked.”
California’s Lemon Law is designed to protect consumers purchasing new cars and certain used vehicles, ensuring they receive fair compensation when issues arise. Officially named the “Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act,” it is often referred to as the Lemon Law because “lemon” colloquially describes defective products, particularly vehicles.
Under this law, if a vehicle experiences severe problems that remain unaddressed after multiple repairs within the warranty period, consumers have the right to demand a replacement or a refund from the manufacturer. Key criteria include the vehicle being under the original warranty, the presence of significant defects affecting use, safety, or value, and a reasonable opportunity for the manufacturer to make repairs. When these conditions are met, consumers can invoke the Lemon Law for a replacement vehicle, full or partial refunds, and even recover attorney’s fees without incurring legal costs themselves.
Implemented in the 1970s, the Lemon Law emerged in response to growing consumer dissatisfaction over serious quality issues with vehicles that went unresolved. However, the sharp increase in Lemon Law cases, alongside numerous strategic class actions, has placed significant strain on the legal system, often leaving consumers waiting years for compensation.
