Key takeaways

AB 1755 requires consumers to provide a 30-day pre-suit notice demanding repurchase or replacement before seeking civil penalties.

SB 26 converts these new procedures into an opt-in regime, applying only to manufacturers that commit to the rules for five years.

The legislation sets a new statute of limitations: one year after the express warranty expires, capped at six years from original delivery.

New discovery rules mandate early mediation and limit initial depositions to two hours per deponent, with monetary sanctions for noncompliance.

The Legislation

California has fundamentally restructured how defective vehicle claims are litigated. Assembly Bill 1755, authored by Assemblymember Ash Kalra and signed by Governor Gavin Newsom on September 29, 2024, establishes a new procedural framework for these disputes. Enacted as Chapter 938 of the Statutes of 2024, the law adds Chapter 12 to the Code of Civil Procedure, encompassing sections 871.20 through 871.28. However, before these rules took full effect, the legislature modified the framework. Senate Bill 26, authored by Senator Thomas Umberg and signed on April 2, 2025, converted the mandatory procedures into an opt-in regime. Enacted as Chapter 1 of the Statutes of 2025, SB 26 dictates that the new rules apply exclusively to auto manufacturers that affirmatively elect to be governed by them.

Why It Matters

The legislation forces early evaluation and settlement in automotive defect cases, potentially reducing court backlogs. By requiring consumers to provide pre-suit notice, the law gives participating manufacturers a specific window to resolve the claim without facing punitive financial exposure. If a manufacturer receives the notice and offers to repurchase or replace the vehicle—while also agreeing to pay reasonable attorney fees and costs—the consumer may be barred from recovering civil penalties. This structure alters the financial calculus for plaintiffs who might otherwise hold out for double damages in litigation, encouraging both sides to resolve valid claims quickly.

Who Should Care

For lawyers

Attorneys handling warranty claims face strict new procedural hurdles if the defendant manufacturer has opted into the system. Under the new chapter, parties must schedule and complete mediation early in the case. The statute stays most other discovery until mediation concludes. Litigants are limited to initial disclosures and short initial depositions, which are strictly capped at two hours per deponent. Courts possess the authority to enforce these rules with specific monetary sanctions for noncompliance, reported as $1,500 against plaintiff's counsel and $2,500 against defense counsel. Additionally, plaintiff attorneys must calculate deadlines under a new statute of limitations framework.

For consumers

Vehicle owners experiencing repeated mechanical failures must verify whether their vehicle's manufacturer has opted into the new rules. If the manufacturer participates, the consumer cannot simply file a lawsuit seeking maximum penalties. Instead, they must send a formal 30-day written notice to the manufacturer. This notice must include the consumer's name, the Vehicle Identification Number (VIN), a summary of the vehicle's repair history, and a clear demand to repurchase or replace the vehicle.

Legal Background

The core of California's lemon law resides in the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act. Under Civil Code section 1793.2, if a manufacturer or its representative cannot conform a new motor vehicle to the express warranty after a reasonable number of repair attempts, it must promptly replace the vehicle or make restitution to the buyer. To assist consumers in proving their case, the Tanner Consumer Protection Act, found in Civil Code section 1793.22, establishes a rebuttable presumption that a reasonable number of repair attempts has been made if specific conditions are met within the first 18 months or 18,000 miles.

Historically, plaintiffs filed these lawsuits under the four-year statute of limitations provided by California Uniform Commercial Code section 2725, which runs from the tender of delivery and lacks a delayed-discovery rule for breach-of-warranty accrual. If a plaintiff proved the manufacturer's failure to repurchase or replace was willful, Civil Code section 1794 allowed recovery of a civil penalty up to two times actual damages.

What the Legislature Did

Rather than amending the Song-Beverly Act directly, AB 1755 layers new procedures on top of the existing substantive rights by adding Chapter 12 to the Code of Civil Procedure. Under Code of Civil Procedure section 871.21, a covered action against a participating manufacturer must be filed within one year after the applicable express warranty expires. In all cases, the lawsuit must be filed no later than six years after the date of the vehicle's original delivery.

Code of Civil Procedure section 871.24 conditions the civil-penalty remedy on pre-suit notice. Consumers must provide the 30-day written notice before pursuing the penalties authorized by Civil Code section 1794. SB 26 adjusted the rollout of these requirements. SB 26 moved the operative date of the pre-suit notice provisions from April 1, 2025, to July 1, 2025. Furthermore, SB 26 requires that a manufacturer's election to be governed by these procedures be irrevocable for five years. This election is reported to the Department of Consumer Affairs' Arbitration Certification Program (ACP), which must publish the list of opted-in manufacturers by December 15 each year.

How It May Be Applied

The effectiveness of AB 1755 depends entirely on manufacturer participation. Because SB 26 makes the election irrevocable for five years, automakers must weigh the benefits of early dispute resolution and protection from civil penalties against the administrative burden of strict compliance and early mediation. Defense counsel will likely monitor the ACP list closely to determine whether to assert the pre-suit notice defense in new filings. Meanwhile, plaintiff attorneys will need to adjust their intake procedures, ensuring they check the ACP registry and draft compliant demand letters before initiating litigation against opted-in brands.

Key Changes Under AB 1755 and SB 26

Feature	Prior Framework	AB 1755 / SB 26 Framework (Opt-In)
Statute of Limitations	Four years from tender of delivery.	One year after express warranty expires, capped at six years from original delivery.
Pre-Suit Notice	Not required for civil penalties.	30-day written notice required for civil penalties.
Discovery	Standard civil discovery rules apply.	Most discovery stayed pending early mediation; initial depositions capped at two hours.
Sanctions	General discovery sanctions.	Specific monetary sanctions ($1,500 plaintiff's counsel, $2,500 defense counsel) for noncompliance.

Plain-English Callout

If your car spends more time in the repair shop than on the road, California law gives you the right to demand a refund or a replacement vehicle. Under the new rules, if your car's manufacturer has signed up for the state's updated dispute program, you cannot immediately sue them for extra financial penalties. First, you must send the manufacturer a written letter with your name, the vehicle's VIN, and a summary of the repair history, at least 30 days before filing an action for civil penalties. If they offer to buy back or replace the car and cover your reasonable legal fees within the statutory window after receiving that notice, they can avoid paying the additional penalties.

This article is general legal information and commentary about developments in California law. It is not legal advice, does not address your specific situation, and is not a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney. Reading this article and contacting us through this website do not create an attorney-client relationship.

Sources & authorities

Civil Code section 1793.2 — source
Civil Code section 1793.22 — source
Civil Code section 1794 — source
California Uniform Commercial Code section 2725 — source

California Overhauls Lemon Law With Opt-In Pre-Suit Rules

Key takeaways