(CITY)Lemon Law Laywer - Free Case Review

When a “lemon” car – one with defects affecting its use, value, or safety – can’t be repaired after a reasonable number of attempts, the owner is entitled to a refund, replacement, or cash compensation at the manufacturer’s expense

The car has major mechanical or electrical problems that persist despite multiple repair attempts.

Common culprits are transmission failures, engine problems, and electrical system malfunctions, which are among the top issues cited in lemon law claims .

For example, in recent years many lemon cases involved engine or transmission defects (e.g. Ford F-150 transmission issues, Jeep Cherokee engine trouble) that “substantially impair the use or safety” of the vehicle .

Modern cars are packed with complex tech (software, sensors, EV batteries), so newer models can be more fragile – a recent uptick in vehicle recalls (up 8% in CA in 2024) shows how high-tech components like EV software and autonomous features are failing and leading to lemon claims.

In short, manufacturing defects that can’t be fixed prompt consumers to seek a buyback or replacement under the law.

A key trigger for invoking the law is when the authorized dealer cannot fix the defect after a “reasonable” number of tries.

The dealer has 2–4 attempts (fewer if it’s a serious safety issue) and the vehicle cannot be  out of service for 30+ days.

At that point, frustration peaks. Drivers lose confidence in the car’s reliability – “when a new vehicle has ongoing problems, it becomes difficult to trust that it will be safe to drive”, causing daily uncertainty and stress.

Many lemons pose safety risks (e.g. brake failures or stalling engines), which understandably alarms consumers.

The threat of accident or injury because of an unfixable defect is unacceptable . Additionally, owners worry about financial loss: the car’s value drops due to its repair history, yet they’re stuck with loan payments or a useless vehicle.

This combination of safety hazards, inconvenience, and economic loss leaves consumers feeling cheated, which is exactly the scenario the lemon law is meant to remedy.

in many cases, it’s not just the defect but also how the dealership/manufacturer handles it that forces consumers to invoke the law. Unfortunately, some dealers and automakers employ delay or denial tactics to avoid a buyback. Common strategies include blaming the problem on “normal” use or driver misuse, offering Band-Aid fixes or extended warranties instead of a refund, delaying repair appointments or parts for weeks, and insisting on excessive repair attempts before admitting the car is a lemon . These bad-faith tactics wear down the customer’s patience. In California, we’ve even seen practices like “lemon laundering,” where a manufacturer repurchases a lemon vehicle but then resells it at auction or out-of-state without disclosing its history . An unsuspecting used-car buyer might unknowingly purchase a prior buyback vehicle that still has unresolved defects – essentially a recycled lemon. If the dealership lied about a used car’s history or condition, or tells an owner “you don’t qualify for lemon law” when they actually do (sometimes persuading them to trade in the car instead) , the customer has been misled. These unethical behaviors often create lemon law cases: consumers turn to attorneys because the dealer/manufacturer isn’t honest or cooperative, leaving legal action as the only way to get justice.

iskdkdka
‍

This law covers vehicles purchased or leased in California with a manufacturer’s warranty, including certified pre-owned (CPO) cars sold with remaining warranty coverage.

California’s AB 1755 (effective April 2025) now explicitly covers certified used cars with remaining manufacturer warranties  and extended the filing deadlines.

About 25% of lemon lawsuits in 2025 involve used vehicles, up from a much smaller share before. This confirms what many suspected: dealers selling “lemony” used cars is a real issue, and now consumers are pursuing those cases in greater numbers.