The New-Car Repair Presumption in California Lemon Law
Under the California lemon law for a new car, the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act, a manufacturer that cannot fix a new vehicle after a reasonable number of attempts must promptly replace it or make restitution (Civil Code § 1793.2(d)(2)). A separate statute tells you when a court will presume that “reasonable number” was reached. This article explains that presumption and the steps a buyer or lessee can take now to keep a claim in good shape.
Short answer: For a new vehicle, California presumes a reasonable number of repair attempts if, within 18 months of delivery or 18,000 miles, whichever comes first, the same problem has been repaired four or more times, or the vehicle has been out of service for repairs for a cumulative total of more than 30 calendar days. A serious safety defect needs only two repair attempts. Direct written notice to the manufacturer can matter for the repair-count paths. The presumption can be challenged, and meeting it does not decide the outcome.
This article is general information, not legal advice, and nothing here predicts a result for any vehicle.
What counts as a “new motor vehicle”
The repair presumption and the buyback remedy apply to a “new motor vehicle,” a term the statute defines. Under Civil Code § 1793.22(e)(2), it means a new motor vehicle that is bought or used primarily for personal, family, or household purposes. It also covers a new vehicle with a gross vehicle weight under 10,000 pounds that is bought or used primarily for business purposes by a person or entity to which not more than five motor vehicles are registered in California.
A lessee is treated as a buyer. Section 1793.2(d)(2)(D) says that, pursuant to Section 1795.4, a buyer of a new motor vehicle “shall also include a lessee.”
Two more definitions matter when you read a repair order. A “nonconformity” is one that “substantially impairs the use, value, or safety of the new motor vehicle to the buyer or lessee” (§ 1793.22(e)(1)). A small rattle that does not meet that description may not count toward the presumption.
If you are comparing how this works for different kinds of vehicles, the new vs. used cars article is the place to start. For the broader question of whether a particular situation qualifies, see California lemon law requirements.
The presumption in § 1793.22(b)
Section 1793.22(b) says a reasonable number of attempts is presumed 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 these happens:
| Path | What the statute requires | Direct notice to the manufacturer |
|---|---|---|
| Safety defect | The same nonconformity creates a condition likely to cause death or serious bodily injury if the vehicle is driven, and it has been subject to repair two or more times by the manufacturer or its agents | Buyer or lessee has at least once directly notified the manufacturer of the need for the repair |
| Same problem, four attempts | The same nonconformity has been subject to repair four or more times by the manufacturer or its agents | Buyer has at least once directly notified the manufacturer of the need for the repair |
| Days out of service | 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 | Not listed as a requirement for this path |
Several details are easy to misread.
It is “more than 30,” not “30 or more.” The statute says “a cumulative total of more than 30 calendar days.” A vehicle that was in the shop for exactly 30 days has not crossed that line. The days are cumulative across visits, and they run from delivery of the vehicle to the buyer.
The clock has two limits, and the first one reached wins. The window is 18 months from delivery or 18,000 miles, “whichever occurs first.” A buyer who drives a lot may reach 18,000 miles well before month 18.
The 30-day limit can be extended “only if repairs cannot be performed due to conditions beyond the control of the manufacturer or its agents.”
Repairs must be by the manufacturer or its agents. Repairs at an independent shop are not what the repair-count paths describe.
The presumption is rebuttable. The statute calls it “a rebuttable presumption affecting the burden of proof.” The manufacturer may offer evidence that the problem was fixed, was not a nonconformity, or has another cause. It can be asserted “in any civil action, including an action in small claims court, or other formal or informal proceeding.”
The presumption is not the only way to show a claim. It is a shortcut for proving a “reasonable number” of attempts. A vehicle outside the 18-month or 18,000-mile window, or one with fewer repairs than the statute lists, is not automatically excluded from § 1793.2(d)(2). Whether a claim works without the presumption turns on the facts, which is a question for an attorney.
When direct notice is a condition
The two repair-count paths say the buyer or lessee must have “at least once directly notified the manufacturer.” The statute then limits when that requirement applies. The buyer must give direct notice “only if the manufacturer has clearly and conspicuously disclosed to the buyer, with the warranty or the owner’s manual, the provisions of this section and that of subdivision (d) of Section 1793.2, including the requirement that the buyer must notify the manufacturer directly.” If notice is required, it must be sent “to the address, if any, specified clearly and conspicuously by the manufacturer in the warranty or owner’s manual.”
In practice, that means the warranty booklet or owner’s manual is a legal document for this purpose. Look for the lemon law section and for a mailing address or portal for notices.
If the manufacturer runs a certified dispute program
Section 1793.22(c) adds a wrinkle. If a qualified third-party dispute resolution process exists and the buyer receives timely written notice of it, with a description of how it operates, the buyer may not assert the presumption “until after the buyer has initially resorted to” that process. The same subdivision extends any limitation period by the number of days between filing with the program and its decision (or the date the manufacturer must carry out the decision, if the buyer accepts it, whichever is later). Whether a given manufacturer’s program qualifies and applies to your vehicle is a point to confirm in the booklet.
What a successful claim can include
If the manufacturer cannot conform a new motor vehicle after a reasonable number of attempts, § 1793.2(d)(2) requires it to “either promptly replace the new motor vehicle” or “promptly make restitution to the buyer.” The buyer “shall be free to elect restitution in lieu of replacement,” and may not be required to accept a replacement vehicle.
Restitution is defined as the actual price paid or payable, including transportation charges and manufacturer-installed options (but not non-manufacturer items installed by a dealer or the buyer), and collateral charges such as sales or use tax, license, registration and other official fees, plus incidental damages such as reasonable repair, towing and rental car costs actually incurred.
The statute allows the manufacturer to reduce restitution by an amount “directly attributable to use by the buyer.” The formula is the price paid or payable (with transportation and manufacturer-installed options) multiplied by a fraction. The denominator is 120,000. The numerator is the miles on the vehicle when the buyer first delivered it for repair of the problem that led to the nonconformity. The mileage offset page walks through that calculation, and the buyback formula page shows how the components fit together.
On fees and penalties, § 1794 says a buyer who prevails in an action under that section “shall be allowed by the court to recover” costs and expenses, including attorney’s fees based on actual time expended, that the court finds were reasonably incurred. If the buyer proves a violation of § 1793.2(d)(2), the buyer may recover a civil penalty of up to two times the amount of damages (§ 1794(e)(1)), subject to the conditions in that subdivision. One condition concerns a written notice to the manufacturer. Under § 1794(e)(3), if the buyer does not serve it, the manufacturer is not liable for that civil penalty. A court decides what, if anything, is awarded.
What to do this week
These are general steps, not instructions for any particular vehicle.
- Pull every repair order. Collect each one from the dealer or service center, including visits where the technician found “no problem.” Each visit shows a date in and a date out, and the days between them are what the 30-day count is built from.
- Check what each order says. Does it describe your complaint in your words? Is the same symptom described the same way each time? If a description is missing or vague, ask the service advisor to correct it at the next visit rather than assuming it will be understood.
- Write down the dates and the odometer. Note the delivery date (the date you took the vehicle), the mileage at the first repair visit, and the 18-month and 18,000-mile marks. Whichever comes first is the end of the presumption window.
- Add up the days out of service. List each stay and total the calendar days. Compare the total with “more than 30.”
- Read the warranty booklet or owner’s manual. Find whether it discloses the lemon law provisions and a direct-notice requirement, and where notices must be sent. If a notice address is given, use that address and keep proof of delivery.
- Send the notice if the booklet asks for one. A short written statement of the vehicle, the repeated problem, the repair history and the request for repair is the kind of content people include. Keep a copy.
- Note whether your manufacturer follows the newer procedures. Some manufacturers have elected to be governed by CCP §§ 871.20 and following, and the manufacturer must tell you at the time of a new-vehicle sale which procedures govern (CCP § 871.29). The opt-in list article explains where to check, and the pre-suit notice article covers a notice step in those procedures.
- Keep driving records and receipts. Save towing, rental, and repair-related costs. They can bear on incidental damages.
- Do not sign a release, trade the vehicle in, or accept a buyback offer without having an attorney read it.
Deadlines to watch
For vehicles governed by the newer procedures, CCP § 871.21 says an action “shall be commenced within one year after the expiration of the applicable express warranty,” and “shall not be brought later than six years after the date of original delivery.” Those periods are tolled as the statute provides: as described in Civil Code § 1793.22(c), “for the time the motor vehicle is out of service by reason of repair for any nonconformity,” and for the period after a pre-suit notice is provided under § 871.24, not to exceed 60 days.
That deadline does not apply to every new car. Under § 871.29(b), the chapter does not apply to a manufacturer’s vehicles sold in a year unless that manufacturer made the election covering that year. Which deadline governs a given vehicle depends on that. The statute of limitations article goes through the deadlines in more detail, and the 30-days-out-of-service presumption article covers the shop-days path on its own.
Frequently asked questions
Does a new car have to be in the shop more than 30 days to be covered?
No. The 30-day path is one of three in § 1793.22(b). The same problem repaired four or more times, or a safety-related defect repaired two or more times, can also support the presumption, subject to the direct-notice rule described above. The 30-day path requires a cumulative total of more than 30 calendar days.
Do I have to notify the manufacturer myself?
For the two repair-count paths, the statute requires direct notice only if the manufacturer clearly and conspicuously disclosed that requirement with the warranty or owner’s manual. If it did, the notice goes to the address it specified there. Check the booklet and consider having an attorney review it.
Does a lease count?
Section 1793.2(d)(2)(D) says a buyer of a new motor vehicle includes a lessee of a new motor vehicle. The presumption’s safety-defect path also refers to the “buyer or lessee.”
What if I passed 18 months or 18,000 miles?
The presumption in § 1793.22(b) applies to events within that window. Passing it does not automatically end a claim, because the presumption is one way to prove a reasonable number of attempts and is not the only way. It does mean the shortcut may not be available, so the facts and the warranty terms matter. An attorney can review them.
Talk to a California lemon law attorney
If your new vehicle has had repeated repairs, a lawyer can read the repair orders and the warranty booklet, check the clocks, and tell you how the statutes apply to your facts. You can contact Lion Lemon to ask about your situation. Do not rely on this article for any decision about your vehicle.
Attorney Advertising. Lion Lemon is a trade name of Lion Legal, P.C., a California law firm. This article provides general information about California law and is not legal advice for any person or vehicle. Prior results do not predict a similar outcome, and each case depends on its own facts.