California's New Lemon Law: AB 1755 Explained

California overhauled its lemon law process with Assembly Bill 1755, signed in 2024 and phased in beginning January 1, 2025. The substantive protections of the Song-Beverly Act did not shrink — you can still get a buyback or replacement, and manufacturers still pay your attorney's fees. What changed is the procedure, and the new steps carry hard deadlines that can cost you the claim if you miss them.

What AB 1755 Changed

• Written notice to the manufacturer. Consumers covered by the new framework must give the manufacturer written notice and an opportunity to repurchase before filing suit. Informal complaints to the dealer no longer substitute for a proper demand.
• A defined response window. The manufacturer gets a fixed period to respond to that demand and, if it chooses, to make a repurchase offer.
• A shorter outside deadline to file. The new framework compresses the window for bringing suit relative to the old four-year backdrop, with the clock tied to delivery and warranty expiration rather than open-ended discovery.
• Structured document exchange. Both sides exchange repair and warranty records on a set schedule, which front-loads work but tends to surface the strength of a claim earlier.
• Mandatory early mediation in many cases. Designed to resolve claims before litigation costs build.
• Attorney's fee provisions tightened. Fee-shifting survives, but courts have more tools to scrutinize fee requests, which has changed how some firms handle volume caseloads.

What Did Not Change

• The buyback formula. Refund of amounts paid, minus the statutory mileage offset. See our buyback calculator.
• The repair-attempt standards and the 18-month / 18,000-mile presumption.
• The civil penalty of up to two times damages for a manufacturer's willful refusal.
• Coverage for leased vehicles and qualifying used and certified pre-owned vehicles.
• The rule that the manufacturer, not the consumer, pays the consumer's attorney's fees on a successful claim.

Who the New Rules Apply To

Application depends on when your vehicle was delivered and when your claim arises, and not every manufacturer is treated identically — participation in certain qualified dispute resolution programs affects which track a claim follows. Claims that predate the phase-in generally proceed under the prior framework. This is the single most common source of confusion we see, and getting it wrong can mean filing in the wrong posture or missing a notice step entirely.

What This Means Practically

1. Document earlier and better. The structured exchange rewards clean records. Get a written repair order at every visit that states your complaint in your words.
2. Do not rely on informal complaints. Calls to the dealer's service manager and posts on an owner forum do not satisfy a notice requirement.
3. Do not sit on the claim. The compressed timeline is the biggest practical change. Owners who waited two years under the old rules and still had room may not now.
4. Get the notice right the first time. A demand that omits required content can waste the response window.

Does This Make It Harder to Win?

For a well-documented claim, no. The substantive standard is unchanged, and manufacturers still face civil penalties and fee exposure. What the new process does is punish disorganization and delay. Owners who report defects promptly, keep their repair orders, and get advice early are in the same position they were before — arguably better, because early mediation can resolve a strong claim faster.

Related: Lemon law deadlines · Do I qualify? · Full guide

Disclaimer: AB 1755 is recent legislation whose application is still being interpreted by California courts, and its requirements vary by claim and manufacturer. This page is general information, not legal advice. Have an attorney confirm which framework governs your vehicle before relying on any deadline described here.

For representation, visit our California Lemon Law practice area.