Lemon Law Myth
For years, consumers, lawyers and judges alike have had a general (but mistaken) notion that California’s lemon law is simply a formula of three or four times in the shop for the same warranty repair within one year or 12,000 miles. A brochure circulated by California’s Department of Consumer Affairs fostered this myth for years. Furthermore, our Attorney General’s Office web site contained the same misinformation, and various bar associations had recordings for the general public leading them to believe that they had no valid claim if their problems fell outside of one year or 12,000 miles.

Know your actual consumer protection rights
The automobile manufacturers, had they been trying, could not have created recordings and brochures more favorable to themselves, or woven a more misleading myth. It deprived countless consumers from knowing their actual rights under the law for years. It is no wonder that so many people, including a large sector of the legal community, are misinformed on what the lemon law actually says.

The Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act
Most often, what people call the lemon law is actually a very small portion of the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act, which gives consumers an evidentiary advantage, in the event they go to trial, so long as they meet specified criteria. In most lemon law cases, the consumer must prove, among other things, that the auto manufacturer (through its authorized warranty repair facilities) has had a reasonable number of opportunities to repair the vehicle. The Song-Beverly Act established a rebuttable presumption for the benefit of consumers where the same nonconformity has been subject to repair four or more times within 18 months or 18,000 miles (recently expanded from 1 year or 12,000 miles). If this standard is met, then the consumer need introduce no further evidence to prove that the manufacturer has had a reasonable number of repair attempts. It is ironic that manufacturers have consistently used this provision – specifically designed to assist consumers if they are forced to litigate – to limit the consumers’ right to recovery.

Getting a refund or replacement on a lemon vehicle
This presumption, by its own terms, is no more than “a rebuttable presumption affecting the burden of proof.” Thus, it applies only when the case goes to trial. Even then, the question of whether the manufacturer had a “reasonable number of attempts” remains a question of fact. Even four unsuccessful attempts at repairing a problem may not conclusively prove that a consumer is entitled to a refund or replacement. Replacement or reimbursement is still dependent upon “a reasonable number of attempts” to conform the vehicle to the warranty. The presumption is simply our Legislature’s decision to establish standards that a consumer must meet in order to have the right to invoke the presumption at the time of trial. Even if there have been fewer than four attempts to repair the same problem and the presumption, a jury still could find that a reasonable number of repair attempts have taken place.