California
California Lemon Law (2026): How to Qualify & Get a Refund
Independently fact-checked against primary sources (last audited August 17, 2026). · Reviewed by the RecordingLaw editorial team. · Law checked current as of August 17, 2026. · 11 primary sources cited on this page. How we verify our legal content

California's Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act requires manufacturers to refund or replace vehicles with a substantial defect that persists after four or more repair attempts, two attempts for a safety defect, or more than 30 cumulative days out of service within 18 months or 18,000 miles of delivery, at the consumer's election.
California has one of the strongest lemon laws in the United States. The Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act protects buyers and lessees of new and used vehicles that come with a manufacturer warranty. If your vehicle has a substantial defect that the manufacturer cannot fix after a reasonable number of repair attempts, California law entitles you to a full refund or a replacement vehicle.
This guide covers the vehicles that qualify, the repair attempt requirements, your remedies, the 2025 legislative reforms under AB 1755 and SB 26, and the step-by-step process for filing a claim.
What Vehicles Are Covered
California's lemon law covers a broad range of vehicles purchased or leased in the state, as long as they carry an active manufacturer's warranty. Knowing which vehicles qualify is the first step in evaluating a potential claim.

Covered Vehicle Types
- New passenger cars: Sedans, coupes, hatchbacks, and similar vehicles
- Trucks and SUVs: Pickup trucks, sport utility vehicles, and crossovers
- Vans and minivans: Including passenger and cargo configurations
- Motorhomes: The chassis and drivetrain components (living quarters may have separate coverage)
- Electric vehicles: Battery electric vehicles (BEVs) and plug-in hybrids (PHEVs)
- Leased vehicles: Any leased vehicle used for personal, family, or household purposes
- Dealer demonstrators: Demo vehicles with remaining warranty coverage
Vehicles Not Covered
- Motorcycles (excluded from the Tanner Act's 'new motor vehicle' definition under (e)(2), though other consumer-goods remedies may still apply)
- Vehicles purchased primarily for business use by companies with more than five vehicles in their fleet
- Off-road vehicles not designed for highway use
- Boats and watercraft
- Vehicles sold "as is" without any warranty
- Vehicles with fully expired warranties and no remaining coverage
California's Lemon Law Presumption
Under Civil Code § 1793.22, California law creates a rebuttable "presumption" that a vehicle is a lemon when certain conditions are met. This presumption shifts the burden of proof to the manufacturer, requiring the manufacturer to demonstrate that the vehicle does not qualify as a lemon.
The presumption must arise within the first 18 months of ownership or 18,000 miles on the odometer, whichever occurs first.
When the Presumption Applies
| Condition | Requirement | Details |
|---|---|---|
| Repair Attempts (Same Defect) | 4 or more attempts | The same nonconformity must substantially impair the vehicle's use, value, or safety |
| Safety Defect Repairs | 2 or more attempts | Applies to defects likely to cause death or serious bodily injury |
| Days Out of Service | More than 30 cumulative days | Vehicle unavailable due to warranty repair attempts for any covered defects |
| Timeframe | Within 18 months or 18,000 miles | Whichever comes first from the date of delivery |
Important: The presumption is a tool to help consumers, but it is not the only path to relief. Even if the presumption does not apply, you may still have a valid lemon law claim under Civil Code § 1793.2 if you can prove the manufacturer failed to repair a substantial defect after a reasonable number of attempts.
Before you can assert the lemon law presumption in court, you must first exhaust any manufacturer-run arbitration program that is certified by the California Department of Consumer Affairs, provided you received written notice of the program. Arbitration through a certified program is informal, free to consumers, and often faster than litigation.
What Qualifies as a "Substantial" Defect?
Not every problem with your vehicle triggers lemon law protection. The defect must "substantially impair" the vehicle's use, value, or safety. Examples include:
- Engine or transmission failures that affect drivability
- Brake system malfunctions
- Steering problems that create safety hazards
- Electrical system failures affecting critical components
- Airbag or safety restraint system defects
- Persistent warning lights indicating serious mechanical issues
- Battery or charging system failures in electric vehicles
Minor issues like squeaks, rattles, or cosmetic blemishes typically do not qualify unless they significantly affect the vehicle's value or your ability to use it safely.
Consumer Remedies: Refund vs. Replacement
When a vehicle qualifies as a lemon under California law, the consumer has the right to choose between two remedies: a full refund (known as a "buyback") or a replacement vehicle.
Option 1: Vehicle Buyback (Refund)
Under Civil Code § 1793.2(d)(2), the manufacturer must refund:
- Full purchase price: Including sales tax
- Finance charges: Interest and fees paid on the vehicle loan
- Registration and license fees: DMV costs associated with the vehicle
- Incidental damages: Towing costs, rental car expenses, and out-of-pocket repair costs
- Loan payoff: Direct payment to the lender to satisfy the remaining loan balance
Mileage Offset (Usage Deduction): The manufacturer may deduct a reasonable amount for the miles you drove before your first repair attempt for the defect. California law specifies this formula:
Usage Deduction = (Purchase Price x Miles at First Repair) / 120,000
For example, if you paid $40,000 for your vehicle and drove 5,000 miles before the first repair attempt, the deduction would be approximately $1,667.
Option 2: Replacement Vehicle
Instead of a refund, you may request a replacement vehicle that is:
- Substantially identical to the original vehicle
- Acceptable to the consumer
- Accompanied by all applicable manufacturer warranties
The manufacturer must also reimburse incidental costs and cannot require you to pay any additional fees beyond the usage deduction.
Leased Vehicle Remedies
Leased vehicles receive the same protections under the Song-Beverly Act. If your leased vehicle qualifies as a lemon, you may be entitled to:
- A refund of all lease payments made to date
- Return of your down payment and security deposit
- Reimbursement of registration and license fees
- Termination of the lease with no remaining payment obligations
- Reimbursement for rental cars, towing, and other incidental expenses
The manufacturer may apply the same mileage offset formula to calculate a usage deduction based on miles driven before the first repair attempt.
Attorney Fees and Civil Penalties
California law provides strong financial incentives for consumers to enforce their lemon law rights.
Attorney Fees
Under Civil Code § 1794(d), if you prevail in a lemon law case, the manufacturer must pay your reasonable attorney fees and court costs. Because of this fee-shifting provision, most California lemon law attorneys work on a contingency basis, meaning you pay nothing upfront and owe no attorney fees unless you win.
Civil Penalty for Willful Violations
Under Civil Code § 1794(c), if the manufacturer's failure to comply with the lemon law was willful, the court may award a civil penalty of up to two times your actual damages on top of the standard refund or replacement. A violation is considered willful when the manufacturer knew of its obligations but intentionally declined to fulfill them.
Federal Backstop: The Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act
California's state law protections layer on top of a federal baseline. The Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act ( et seq.) gives consumers the right to sue in federal court when a manufacturer breaches a written warranty or implied warranty of merchantability. If your vehicle qualifies as a lemon under California law, you may also have a parallel Magnuson-Moss claim. Attorney fees are recoverable under both statutes, so most lemon law attorneys analyze both theories simultaneously.
2025 Legislative Reforms: AB 1755 and SB 26
California's lemon law underwent significant procedural changes in 2025 through two pieces of legislation: Assembly Bill 1755 (signed September 29, 2024; key provisions operative April 1, 2025) and Senate Bill 26 (signed April 2, 2025; main provisions operative July 1, 2025). These reforms were enacted after lemon law filings surged from approximately 15,000 cases in 2022 to over 25,000 in 2024.
Manufacturer Opt-In System (SB 26)
SB 26 created a voluntary opt-in framework. Manufacturers who choose to participate commit to the new AB 1755 procedures for a minimum of five years, and the election is irrevocable for that period. The California Department of Consumer Affairs maintains and publishes the official list of opted-in manufacturers and must update it by December 15 each year.
As of 2025, most major manufacturers have opted in, including Ford, General Motors, Stellantis (Chrysler, Dodge, Jeep, RAM), Honda, Toyota, Hyundai, Kia, Nissan, BMW, Mercedes-Benz, Tesla, Subaru, Volkswagen, and others. Check the DCA's published list to confirm your manufacturer's current status.
Pre-Suit Written Notice Requirement (Civil Penalties)
Under Code of Civil Procedure § 871.24, for claims against opted-in manufacturers, consumers who want to seek civil penalties must provide written notice at least 30 days before filing a lawsuit. You can still file suit for a basic buyback or replacement without sending this notice, but you will be unable to seek the 2x civil penalty without it.
The notice must be sent by certified mail or email to the manufacturer's designated contact address and must include:
- The consumer's name and contact information
- The vehicle identification number (VIN)
- A description of the defect or nonconformity
- A summary of the repair history
- The consumer's desired remedy (refund or replacement)
The manufacturer then has 30 days to make an offer of restitution or replacement. If the manufacturer agrees to a buyback or replacement, it must complete the transaction within 60 days of receiving the original notice.
$50-Per-Day Penalty for Late Completion
Once the consumer signs and delivers a release, the manufacturer must complete the agreed restitution or replacement within 30 days. Failure to meet that deadline triggers a mandatory penalty of $50 per day until the manufacturer finalizes the transaction, unless the delay is caused by the consumer's own failure to cooperate in good faith.
Statute of Limitations
AB 1755 established clear filing deadlines under Code of Civil Procedure § 871.21:
- One year after the warranty expires, OR
- Six years from the original purchase or delivery date
Whichever deadline comes first controls. The 30-day notice period is tolled against these deadlines (it does not count against your filing window), up to a maximum tolling period of 60 days.
Used Vehicle Coverage Clarified by the Courts
Used vehicle coverage was not changed by AB 1755 or SB 26. The California Supreme Court's October 2024 decision in Rodriguez v. FCA US, LLC clarified that a used vehicle qualifies for the Song-Beverly refund-or-replace remedy only if a manufacturer-issued warranty, such as a CPO warranty, was issued at the time of the used-vehicle sale. A used car sold with just the unexpired balance of its original factory warranty does not qualify, even though it did under the older Court of Appeal rule in Jensen v. BMW of North America that Rodriguez disapproved. Vehicles sold "as is" or with only a dealer-issued warranty are generally not covered either.
How to File a Lemon Law Claim in California
Filing a successful lemon law claim requires careful documentation and adherence to proper procedures.
Step 1: Document Everything
- Keep all repair orders and invoices
- Note the dates your vehicle was in the shop and the dates it was returned
- Document the symptoms you experienced in writing
- Save all correspondence with the dealer and manufacturer
- Take photos or videos of defects when possible
Step 2: Allow Reasonable Repair Attempts
Give the manufacturer a reasonable opportunity to fix the problem. For most defects, this means at least four repair attempts for the same issue. For safety defects that could cause death or serious injury, two attempts may be sufficient.
Step 3: Send Written Notice (If Seeking Civil Penalties)
If the manufacturer has opted in under SB 26 and you intend to seek civil penalties, you must send a formal written notice at least 30 days before filing suit. Send it by certified mail or email to the manufacturer's designated lemon law contact address. Even if you are not seeking penalties, sending a written demand letter is a best practice that strengthens your case.
Step 4: Wait for the Manufacturer's Response
The manufacturer has 30 days to respond to your notice. They may offer to:
- Make additional repair attempts
- Offer a buyback or replacement
- Propose a settlement
If the manufacturer agrees to a resolution, it must be completed within 60 days of your original notice (or within 30 days of receiving a signed release, with daily penalties accruing if they miss that window). If they fail to respond or their offer is inadequate, you may proceed with further action.
Step 5: Consider Arbitration or Litigation
If the manufacturer does not resolve your claim satisfactorily, you have two main options:
- Manufacturer arbitration: Many manufacturers offer arbitration programs certified by the California Department of Consumer Affairs. Arbitration is typically faster and less expensive than litigation.
- File a lawsuit: You can sue the manufacturer in court. Under (d), the manufacturer must pay your attorney fees if you win.
Note: If a manufacturer has a DCA-certified arbitration program and you received written notice of its availability, you must generally attempt arbitration before asserting the lemon law presumption in court.
Manufacturer Defenses
Manufacturers may raise several defenses to avoid lemon law liability. Understanding these defenses can help you build a stronger case.
| Defense | Manufacturer's Argument | How to Counter |
|---|---|---|
| Owner abuse or neglect | Defect caused by consumer misuse | Provide maintenance records showing proper care |
| Unauthorized modifications | Aftermarket parts caused the problem | Show the defect existed before modifications or is unrelated |
| Defect is not substantial | Problem is minor or cosmetic | Document how the defect affects safety, use, or value |
| Insufficient repair attempts | Consumer did not allow enough attempts | Show repair history meets presumption requirements |
| Statute of limitations expired | Claim was filed too late | Verify your claim is within the warranty period plus applicable deadlines |
| Consumer caused the condition | Accident or damage caused the defect | Provide evidence the defect is a manufacturing or design issue |
Used Vehicle Protections
California's lemon law can protect used vehicle buyers, but coverage depends on when the manufacturer's warranty was issued, not simply on whether warranty coverage remains. In Rodriguez v. FCA US, LLC (Cal. 2024), the California Supreme Court held that a used vehicle sold with only the unexpired balance of the original new-car warranty carried over from its first sale is not a "new motor vehicle" under (e)(2) and does not qualify for the Song-Beverly refund-or-replace remedy. The decision disapproved the older Court of Appeal rule in Jensen v. BMW of North America, Inc. (1995) that had treated any unexpired warranty balance as qualifying.
Used Vehicles That Qualify
- Certified Pre-Owned (CPO) vehicles: A CPO or other manufacturer-issued warranty issued at the time of the used-vehicle sale qualifies for the same refund-or-replace protections as a new car
- Dealer demonstrators: Demo vehicles are defined as "new motor vehicles" under Civil Code Sec 1793.22(e)(2) regardless of when their warranty was issued
Used Vehicles That Do Not Qualify for Refund-or-Replace
- Vehicles sold with only the unexpired balance of the original factory warranty: A used car does not become a "new motor vehicle" just because some of the original manufacturer's warranty period remains. The buyer may still have a claim for breach of that express warranty under the California Commercial Code or the federal Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, and may have implied-warranty rights against the used-vehicle dealer under Civil Code Sec 1795.5, but not the Song-Beverly refund-or-replace remedy against the manufacturer
- Vehicles sold "as is" with no warranty
- Vehicles with fully expired manufacturer warranties
- Vehicles covered only by a dealer-issued extended service contract (these are handled under separate warranty laws, not the Song-Beverly lemon law provisions)
- Private party sales without manufacturer warranty transfers
The CARS Act (Effective October 1, 2026)
While not a lemon law change, the California Combating Auto Retail Scams (CARS) Act (SB 766, signed October 6, 2025) will give used car buyers additional protections starting October 1, 2026. Key provisions include:
- A three-day right to cancel for used cars priced at $50,000 or less, provided the vehicle has not been driven more than 400 miles
- Dealers must disclose the full vehicle price upfront, including all non-optional charges
- Dealers may charge a restocking fee of up to 1.5% of the purchase price (generally capped at $600) plus up to $1 per mile over 250 miles
This law does not replace lemon law protections but provides an additional safety net for used car buyers.
Electric Vehicle Considerations
Electric vehicles present unique lemon law considerations due to their complex battery systems and electronic components.
Common EV Defects That May Qualify
- Battery degradation beyond normal parameters specified by the manufacturer
- Charging system failures
- Range significantly below manufacturer specifications
- Software glitches affecting vehicle operation or safety
- Electric motor malfunctions
- Thermal management system failures
EV-Specific Challenges
EV owners may face unique challenges in lemon law cases:
- Software updates: Manufacturers may argue that over-the-air software updates resolved the issue
- Battery warranties: Separate battery warranties (often 8 years/100,000 miles) may complicate coverage analysis
- Dealer expertise: Some dealers may lack EV-specific diagnostic training, which can affect the quality of repair attempts
- Documentation: Software-related issues may be harder to document than traditional mechanical problems
Statute of Limitations
Understanding the deadlines for filing a lemon law claim is critical. Missing these deadlines can bar your claim entirely.
Current Deadlines (AB 1755, Operative 2025)
- During warranty: Claims should be initiated while the manufacturer warranty is still active
- After warranty expires: You have one year from the warranty expiration date to file
- Maximum period: No claim may be filed more than six years from the original purchase or delivery date
- Whichever comes first controls the deadline
The 30-day pre-suit notice period required for civil penalty claims against opted-in manufacturers is tolled against these deadlines (it does not eat into your filing window), up to a maximum of 60 days. Send your written notice as soon as you believe your vehicle qualifies.
More California Laws
Frequently Asked Questions
How many repair attempts does California require before a vehicle is considered a lemon?
Under the lemon law presumption in Civil Code § 1793.22, a vehicle may qualify as a lemon after four or more repair attempts for the same substantial defect, two or more attempts for a safety defect likely to cause death or serious injury, or more than 30 cumulative days out of service for warranty repairs. These conditions must occur within the first 18 months or 18,000 miles. However, even outside the presumption, you may have a valid claim if the manufacturer failed to fix a substantial defect after a reasonable number of attempts.
Do I need a lawyer to file a California lemon law claim?
You are not required to hire an attorney, but legal representation significantly improves your chances of a favorable outcome. Under Civil Code § 1794(d), the manufacturer must pay your reasonable attorney fees if you prevail. Because of this fee-shifting provision, most California lemon law attorneys work on contingency, meaning you pay nothing unless you win your case.
Can I get a refund for a leased vehicle under California's lemon law?
Yes. Leased vehicles used for personal, family, or household purposes are fully covered under the Song-Beverly Act. If your leased vehicle qualifies as a lemon, you may be entitled to a refund of all lease payments made, return of your down payment and security deposit, reimbursement of fees, and termination of the lease with no further payment obligations.
Does California's lemon law cover used cars?
California's lemon law covers used cars only if a manufacturer-issued warranty, such as a certified pre-owned (CPO) warranty, was issued at the time of the used-vehicle sale. Under the California Supreme Court's 2024 decision in Rodriguez v. FCA US, LLC, a used car sold with just the unexpired balance of its original factory warranty does not qualify for the refund-or-replace remedy, though other remedies such as the federal Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act may still apply. Vehicles sold as-is or with only a dealer-issued warranty are generally not covered under the Song-Beverly lemon law provisions.
What is the usage deduction in a California lemon law buyback?
The usage deduction is an amount the manufacturer may subtract from your refund to account for the miles you drove before the first repair attempt. It is calculated using this formula: (Purchase Price x Miles Driven at First Repair) divided by 120,000. For example, if you paid $40,000 and drove 5,000 miles before the first repair attempt, the deduction would be approximately $1,667.
What changed under AB 1755 and SB 26 in 2025?
AB 1755 and SB 26 introduced a manufacturer opt-in system and new pre-suit notice procedures. For claims against opted-in manufacturers, consumers who want to seek civil penalties must send written notice at least 30 days before filing suit. The manufacturer then has 30 days to make an offer and 60 days to complete a buyback or replacement from the original notice date. A key point: the notice requirement applies to civil penalty claims, not to a basic buyback or replacement suit. The reforms also established clear filing deadlines (one year after warranty expiration or six years from purchase, whichever is earlier) and a $50-per-day penalty when manufacturers miss the 30-day signed-release completion window.
Are electric vehicles covered under California's lemon law?
Yes. Electric vehicles are fully covered under California's lemon law. Battery defects, charging system failures, range problems significantly below manufacturer specifications, and software malfunctions that substantially impair the vehicle's use, value, or safety may all qualify for lemon law relief.
Updates
Corrected the used-vehicle coverage section: under the California Supreme Court's October 2024 decision in Rodriguez v. FCA US, LLC, a used car qualifies for a lemon law refund or replacement only if a manufacturer-issued warranty (such as a CPO warranty) was issued at the time of the used-vehicle sale, not merely because some of the original factory warranty balance remains; this rule comes from that court decision, not from the 2025 AB 1755/SB 26 reforms.
Independently fact-checked against the cited primary sources; governing law re-checked for recent changes
Governing law re-checked for recent changes
Corrected the days-out-of-service presumption threshold to Civil Code 1793.22(b)(3)'s actual 'more than 30 days' standard (not '30 or more'), and moved motorcycles out of the covered-vehicles list since 1793.22(e)(2) excludes them from the Tanner Act's new-motor-vehicle definition.
Governing law re-checked for recent changes
Reviewed and approved by an editor
The Law Behind This Article
This article rests on 4 statutory provisions held in our own legal record, each retrieved from the official source. Tap a section to read the operative text.
California Civil Code
§ 1793.2In force
(a) Every manufacturer of consumer goods sold in this state and for which the manufacturer has made an express warranty shall: (1) (A) Maintain in this state sufficient service and repair facilities reasonably close to all areas where its consumer goods are sold to carry out the terms of those warranties or designate and authorize in this state as service and repair facilities independent repair or service facilities reasonably close to all areas where its consumer goods are sold to carry out the terms of the warranties. (B) As a means of complying with this paragraph, a manufacturer may enter into warranty service contracts with independent service and repair facilities. The warranty service contracts may provide for a fixed schedule of rates to be charged for warranty service or warranty repair work. However, the rates fixed by those contracts shall be in conformity with the requirements of subdivision (c) of Section 1793.3.
Official text (excerpt) · as of 2026-07-28 · Read the full section at leginfo.legislature.ca.gov
Cited in 509 court opinionsMost recently applied by a court: 2026
Leading cases: Krieger v. Nick Alexander Imports, Inc. (California Court of Appeal 1991, 234 Cal. App. 3d 205) · Mocek v. Alfa Leisure, Inc. (California Court of Appeal 2003, 7 Cal. Rptr. 3d 546) · Hanna v. Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC (California Court of Appeal, 5th District 2019, 248 Cal. Rptr. 3d 654)
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
§ 1793.22In force
(a) This section shall be known and may be cited as the Tanner Consumer Protection Act. (b) It shall be presumed that a reasonable number of attempts have been made to conform a new motor vehicle to the applicable express warranties if, within 18 months from delivery to the buyer or 18,000 miles on the odometer of the vehicle, whichever occurs first, one or more of the following occurs: (1) The same nonconformity results in a condition that is likely to cause death or serious bodily injury if the vehicle is driven and the nonconformity has been subject to repair two or more times by the manufacturer or its agents, and the buyer or lessee has at least once directly notified the manufacturer of the need for the repair of the nonconformity. (2) The same nonconformity has been subject to repair four or more times by the manufacturer or its agents and the buyer has at least once directly notified the manufacturer of the need for the repair of the nonconformity. (3) The vehicle is out of service by reason of repair of nonconformities by the manufacturer or its agents for a cumulative total of more than 30 calendar days since delivery of the vehicle to the buyer.
Official text (excerpt) · as of 2026-07-28 · Read the full section at leginfo.legislature.ca.gov
Cited in 41 court opinionsMost recently applied by a court: 2026
Leading cases: Park City Services, Inc. v. Ford Motor Co. (California Court of Appeal 2006, 50 Cal. Rptr. 3d 373) · Goglin v. BMW of North America, LLC (California Court of Appeal 2016, 4 Cal. App. 5th 462) · Lafferty v. Wells Fargo Bank (California Court of Appeal 2013, 213 Cal. App. 4th 545)
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
§ 1794In force
(a) Any buyer of consumer goods who is damaged by a failure to comply with any obligation under this chapter or under an implied or express warranty or service contract may bring an action for the recovery of damages and other legal and equitable relief. (b) The measure of the buyer’s damages in an action under this section shall include the rights of replacement or reimbursement as set forth in subdivision (d) of Section 1793.2, and the following: (1) Where the buyer has rightfully rejected or justifiably revoked acceptance of the goods or has exercised any right to cancel the sale, Sections 2711, 2712, and 2713 of the Commercial Code shall apply. (2) Where the buyer has accepted the goods, Sections 2714 and 2715 of the Commercial Code shall apply, and the measure of damages shall include the cost of repairs necessary to make the goods conform. (c) If the buyer establishes that the failure to comply was willful, the judgment may include, in addition to the amounts recovered under subdivision (a), a civil penalty which shall not exceed two times the amount of actual damages.
Official text (excerpt) · as of 2026-07-28 · Read the full section at leginfo.legislature.ca.gov
Cited in 576 court opinionsMost recently applied by a court: 2026
Leading cases: Murillo v. Fleetwood Enterprises, Inc. (California Supreme Court 1998, 17 Cal. 4th 985) · Doppes v. Bentley Motors, Inc. (California Court of Appeal 2009, 174 Cal. App. 4th 1004) · Carver v. Chevron U.S.A., Inc. (California Court of Appeal 2002, 118 Cal. Rptr. 2d 569)
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
United States Code Title 15
§ 2301DefinitionsIn forcecited in 39 of our articles
For the purposes of this chapter: The term “consumer product” means any tangible personal property which is distributed in commerce and which is normally used for personal, family, or household purposes (including any such property intended to be attached to or installed in any real property without regard to whether it is so attached or installed). The term “Commission” means the Federal Trade Commission. The term “consumer” means a buyer (other than for purposes of resale) of any consumer product, any person to whom such product is transferred during the duration of an implied or written warranty (or service contract) applicable to the product, and any other person who is entitled by the terms of such warranty (or service contract) or under applicable State law to enforce against the warrantor (or service contractor) the obligations of the warranty (or service contract). The term “supplier” means any person engaged in the business of making a consumer product directly or indirectly available to consumers. The term “warrantor” means any supplier or other person who gives or offers to give a written warranty or who is or may be obligated under an implied warranty.
Official text (excerpt) · as of 2026-07-28 · Read the full section at uscode.house.gov
Cited in 1,671 court opinionsMost recently applied by a court: 2026
Leading cases: John F. "Jack" Walsh v. Ford Motor Company (Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit 1986, 807 F.2d 1000) · Birdsong v. Apple, Inc. (Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit 2009, 590 F.3d 955) · Robert E. Kelly Virginia L. Kelly v. Fleetwood Enterprises, Inc. (Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit 2004, 377 F.3d 1034)
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: Arkansas Lemon Law (2026): How to Qualify & Get a Refund, Washington Lemon Law (2026): How to Qualify & Get a Refund, Alabama Lemon Law (2026): How to Qualify and Get a Refund
Search our full record of US law — 2.1 million sections, every state + federal →
Sources and References
- Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act (Full Text)(leginfo.legislature.ca.gov).gov
- California Civil Code § 1793.22: Lemon Law Presumption(leginfo.legislature.ca.gov).gov
- California Civil Code § 1793.2: Manufacturer Repair and Refund Obligations(leginfo.legislature.ca.gov).gov
- California Civil Code § 1794: Attorney Fees and Civil Penalties(leginfo.legislature.ca.gov).gov
- Assembly Bill 1755: Lemon Law Reform (2024)(leginfo.legislature.ca.gov).gov
- California DCA: New Lemon Law Procedures Under AB 1755 and SB 26(dca.ca.gov).gov
- California DCA: Manufacturer Opt-In List (SB 26)(dca.ca.gov).gov
- California Department of Consumer Affairs: Arbitration Certification Program(dca.ca.gov).gov
- California Attorney General: Lemon Law Guide(oag.ca.gov).gov
- California CARS Act: Combating Auto Retail Scams(calawyers.org)
- SB 26 - New Lemon Law Procedures (2025)(leginfo.legislature.ca.gov).gov
- SB 766 - California Combating Auto Retail Scams (CARS) Act(leginfo.legislature.ca.gov).gov
- Rodriguez v. FCA US, LLC, California Supreme Court, S274625 (Oct. 31, 2024): used-vehicle warranty coverage opinion(courtlistener.com)