California lemon law changes: AB 1755, SB 26 and the opt-in list

Between March 2024 and July 2025, the Legislature passed two lemon law bills and the California Supreme Court decided four lemon law cases. The bills, AB 1755 and SB 26, did not change who qualifies for a buyback, and they left the basic refund formula in place. They changed procedure: notices, deadlines, mediation, discovery and how a settlement gets paid. Because of SB 26, those procedures apply only to manufacturers that chose them.

We keep this page current. It was last checked on October 2, 2026, and we update it after the Department of Consumer Affairs (DCA) republishes its opt-in list, which the law requires by December 15 each year. For how the lemon law works overall, see our California lemon law guide.

AB 1755 (2024): what it added

Assembly Bill 1755 was signed on September 29, 2024, and took effect January 1, 2025. It changed no section of the Civil Code and instead added a new chapter to the Code of Civil Procedure, sections 871.20 through 871.28, for lawsuits seeking a repurchase, a replacement or civil penalties because a manufacturer failed to honor its express warranty. Section 871.28 says its duties add to existing law rather than replace it. As first written, the chapter covered every manufacturer, and its pre-suit notice rule was set to start on April 1, 2025.

SB 26 (2025): the rules became opt-in

Senate Bill 26 was signed on April 2, 2025, as an urgency statute, so it took effect that day. Its central change is that the AB 1755 procedures apply only to a manufacturer that elects to be governed by them. Without an election, the older rules govern. SB 26 also moved the start of the pre-suit notice rule to July 1, 2025, and added a disclosure rule for consumers who sell the car after the manufacturer fails to make a timely offer.

How a manufacturer opts in

The regular election, under section 871.29, covers all of a manufacturer's vehicles sold during five consecutive calendar years. The manufacturer files written notice with the DCA's Arbitration Certification Program by October 31 of the year before the period starts, and it cannot revoke the election during those five years, though it can elect again for the next five. By December 15 each year, the DCA publishes the manufacturers whose elections cover the coming year.

Under a one-time catch-up rule in section 871.30, a manufacturer had 30 days after April 2, 2025, to elect the new procedures for vehicles sold in 2025 and all earlier years. A manufacturer that skipped that election is not covered by the new procedures for its vehicles sold new in 2025 or before, even in cases filed between January 1 and April 2, 2025.

When a vehicle is sold new, SB 26 also requires the manufacturer to tell the buyer which procedure governs it. Elections attach to the years vehicles were sold, and the DCA's list does not show sale years, so coverage has to be confirmed for each car.

Who opted in, as of October 2026

As of October 2, 2026, the DCA's list of manufacturers that opted in had 59 entries. It includes Ford, General Motors, FCA US (Stellantis), Hyundai, Genesis, Kia, Nissan, Infiniti, Mercedes-Benz and Subaru, along with Mitsubishi, Jaguar Land Rover and more than 30 entries for RV, motorhome and camper makers. Several large brands, including Toyota, Honda, Tesla, BMW and Volkswagen, did not appear on it. Most entries were added in April and May 2025, and the newest is dated April 1, 2026. The list changes, so check the live version. Our manufacturer guides cover individual brands.

What changes for opted-in manufacturers

Before a lawsuit

Since July 1, 2025, a consumer who wants to seek the civil penalty for a willful violation (up to two times actual damages under Civil Code section 1794(c)) must send the manufacturer written notice at least 30 days before suing. The notice gives the consumer's name, the correct VIN and a brief repair history, and demands repurchase or replacement. It goes by email or certified mail to contact points the manufacturer must publish in English and Spanish. A consumer can still sue for a buyback without sending notice, but cannot then ask for civil penalties. Several related rules hang on that notice.

• Safe harbor. If the manufacturer offers a repurchase or replacement, plus reasonable attorney's fees, within 30 days and completes it within 60, no civil penalty is allowed.
• Sale disclosure. With no offer after 30 days, the consumer may sell the car and still sue, but since SB 26 the civil penalty claim survives only if the buyer got written notice of the claim before the sale.
• Binding fee arbitration. When a claim resolves before a lawsuit and the sides cannot agree on attorney's fees and costs, a neutral arbitrator's decision is binding.
• Standardized release. A buyback cannot be conditioned on any release other than the Standardized SBA Release in section 871.25, which fixes who gets paid, when, and which claims are released. Our step-by-step process guide walks through its terms.

After a lawsuit is filed

Within 60 days after the manufacturer answers, both sides must exchange a set list of documents and facts without waiting for requests. Each side may take a two-hour initial deposition of the other within 120 days. Mediation must be scheduled within 90 days and held within 150 days. Other discovery waits until mediation ends. Absent good cause, a lawyer who misses the disclosure or deposition rules faces a mandatory sanction of $1,500 on the consumer's side or $2,500 on the manufacturer's. Repeated failures can lead to dismissal of a consumer's case or bar a manufacturer from offering evidence at trial on whether the car had a qualifying defect. These rules apply only to cases filed on or after January 1, 2025, and not to self-represented parties.

Shorter deadlines

Under section 871.21, a lawsuit must be filed within one year after the applicable express warranty expires, and never more than six years after the car's original delivery. The "applicable" warranty is the one covering the specific defect, so an engine problem may be measured against a longer powertrain warranty rather than the basic warranty. The clock pauses during certified arbitration, while the car is out of service for repair, and for up to 60 days after a pre-suit notice. Manufacturers that did not opt in remain under the general four-year rule in Commercial Code section 2725, and when it starts can depend on the facts, as our page on lemon law time limits explains.

How the buyback is calculated and paid

Section 871.27 changes the restitution math in five ways. Optional products bought from third parties, such as an outside service contract or theft-deterrent device, are offset, though the same products supplied by the selling dealer remain recoverable. Negative equity rolled in from a prior car is offset. Manufacturer rebates are left out of the price. The manufacturer does not pay loan interest that will never be owed once the loan is paid off. Leases get their own rules, covered on our leased car page.

Payment timing is fixed too. The consumer gets the restitution funds when the car is returned, the loan payoff goes out within one business day, and an agreed buyback must be completed within 30 days of the signed release. After that, the manufacturer owes a mandatory $50 a day until it is done, unless the parties agree otherwise or the consumer caused the delay.

What did not change

Much of the lemon law is where it was before 2025, for every manufacturer:

• The repair presumption in Civil Code section 1793.22(b) is untouched: two repairs for a serious safety defect, four for the same defect, or more than 30 days out of service, within 18 months or 18,000 miles.
• You, not the manufacturer, still choose between a refund and a replacement.
• Section 1794(d) still requires the manufacturer to pay a winning consumer's reasonable attorney's fees and costs.
• Civil penalties still exist. For opted-in manufacturers, the pre-suit notice is now the step that preserves them.
• Arbitration through a manufacturer's program is still optional before you sue. AB 1755 did not make it a precondition.
• The basic restitution formula, including the usage offset based on 120,000 miles, is unchanged.
• Manufacturers that did not opt in are governed by the same Song-Beverly rules and DCA-certified arbitration programs that applied before 2025.

Four Supreme Court decisions from 2024 and 2025

Rodriguez v. FCA US (October 31, 2024)

A used car bought with only the leftover part of its factory warranty is not a "new motor vehicle," so it cannot get a lemon law buyback. Demonstrators and dealer-owned cars sold with a new-car warranty still qualify, and the Court disapproved the 1995 Jensen v. BMW decision to the extent it said otherwise. The used car lemon law page covers what used buyers can still do.

Niedermeier v. FCA US (March 4, 2024)

A trade-in credit or the money from selling the car does not reduce the restitution a manufacturer owes, at least when the owner was forced to trade in or sell because the manufacturer did not comply. The Court of Appeal had cut the award by a $19,000 trade-in, and the Supreme Court reversed. The AB 1755 negative-equity offset is a separate rule for opted-in manufacturers only.

Madrigal v. Hyundai Motor America (March 20, 2025)

A consumer who rejects a formal settlement offer under Code of Civil Procedure section 998 and later settles does not necessarily escape that statute's cost-shifting. That can mean losing post-offer costs and fees and paying some of the manufacturer's post-offer costs, unless the settlement itself allocates them.

Ford Motor Warranty Cases (July 3, 2025)

A manufacturer cannot force a lemon law case into arbitration by invoking the arbitration clause in the dealer's sales contract. The manufacturer is not a party to that contract, and lemon law claims rest on duties imposed by statute. The Court disapproved Felisilda v. FCA US (2020), which had allowed the practice. An arbitration agreement signed directly with a manufacturer is a different question that this case did not decide.

A review is built in for 2029

SB 26 states that the Legislature intends to evaluate both laws beginning January 1, 2029, looking at outcomes for consumers, manufacturers and the courts, whether the procedures cause harm, and whether the law "should be reevaluated or repealed." A five-year election filed by October 31, 2025, would cover vehicles sold through 2030, past the start of that review. Apart from SB 26 itself, we have found no bill in the 2025-26 session that amends the core lemon law sections or the AB 1755 chapter.

Find out which rules cover your car

Three things answer most of it. If you bought new on or after April 2, 2025, look for the notice the manufacturer gave you at the sale stating which procedure applies. Your sales contract shows the sale date. The DCA list shows whether your manufacturer has elected. If those point in different directions, or the notice is missing, an attorney can sort it out in a free case review. You can also use the lemon checker to see how your repair history lines up with the presumption.