The state of California’s longstanding lemon laws, which offer protections for people with faulty vehicles, are being altered by Assembly Bill (AB) 1755. Automakers, buyers and the courts are butting heads over a crucial dilemma: how the legal system should balance multiple perspectives weighing in on the issue. Concerns over court efficiency, the burden of manufacturer responsibility and the aim of consumer priority are all competing to take precedence as subsequent changes make their way through the committee.
The debate over California’s lemon laws is complex, but hastening legislative changes is leading to more issues than solutions.
California’s Song-Beverly Warranty Act and the lesser-known Tanner Consumer Protection Act have worked in tandem since the 1970s to form one of the strongest consumer protection systems in America, especially compared with states like Texas and Tennessee and the federal Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act. The scope of California’s lemon law is broad, with flexible criteria. Clear-cut parameters also allow for relatively speedy court resolutions and result in a high success rate for plaintiffs, with roughly 70% of cases settling before trial.
However, civil cases related to defective vehicles have surged by the thousands in recent years, with lemon law cases now constituting nearly 10% of all civil filings in Los Angeles County. California’s large population and high vehicle sales naturally lead to more defective vehicles. But growing awareness of consumer rights and unvetted mechanical advancements like electric capabilities and self-driving technology have led to a greater number of lawsuits, backlogging California’s courts.
To streamline these accumulating suits, AB 1755 was proposed in 2023. The bill was initially tacked onto a measure dealing with child support, which was hastily gutted and amended. Several Assembly members, including Blanca Pacheco, Rebecca Bauer-Kahan and Roger Niello, were hesitant to express support or dissent toward AB 1755 with little time for input or discussion.
Former Los Angeles Assemblymember Mike Gatto cautioned against the bill’s urgent implementation, saying, “It increases the reliance on special interest groups who tell the legislators what the legislation contains. It’s very hard during that chaotic last week of session to, you know, be able to review things of great length like that” as cited by CalMatters.
Assemblymember Ash Kalra, who introduced the bill alongside Thomas Umberg, told the committee that the bill was formulated as a compromise between consumer attorneys, civil defense attorneys and large auto manufacturers like General Motors. The biggest proposed advantage of the bill, as described by Umberg, is reducing the number of civil filings to unclutter California’s courts. While the intention is absolutely solid, the outcome has been faulty — subsequent confusions sparked by the bill have been putting an even bigger hold on the legislative process than before.
Gov. Gavin Newsom ended up signing AB 1755 to fulfill this aim. In his signing message for the bill, Newsom said, “I commend the authors for their efforts to expedite resolution of Lemon Law claims and reduce litigation that is placing increasing pressure on court dockets.” However, in the same message, he urged the Legislature to consider the necessity of additional changes to the updated lemon laws to address the concerns of divided automakers.
Large domestic motor companies like General Motors, Stellantis and Ford supported AB 1755, while Tesla and foreign companies like Toyota and Volkswagen opposed it. Notably, between 2018 and 2021, General Motors accounted for 29% of lemon cases filed, Fiat Chrysler — now Stellantis — accounted for 17% and Ford accounted for 13.5%. Tesla, Toyota and Volkswagen accounted for 0.6%, 2.2% and 3.2%, respectively.
Could it be that domestic companies simply account for more car sales, leading to a higher number of lemon cases? It seems unlikely, as Toyota and Tesla consistently dominate California’s auto industry. It appears that automakers who have faced a higher number of lemon cases are supporting the bill possibly to mitigate future penalties. This approach should be heeded with caution, because it is not just the rights but also the lives and safety of consumers that is at stake when it comes to defective vehicles.
The newly proposed Senate Bill (SB) 26 was intended to address any oversights from AB 1755. However, just weeks after Newsom signed AB 1755, the California Supreme Court issued a ruling that established motor companies are not required to honor warranties on used vehicles. SB 26 does not account for this, further misconstruing the future of California’s lemon laws.
As more and more consumer protections seem to be stripped without sufficient legal coordination, legislators face a complex path to decipher. The intentions behind AB 1755 were to improve efficiency and reduce litigation backlogs, but the hasty approach behind its implementation has led to more confusion. It is unfortunate that finding a solution is not a straightforward process, and legislators do have to balance pressure to deliver to the public efficiently. But to ensure a successful future for California’s lemon laws, it seems as though careful deliberation is the best next step.
While efforts to streamline cases and improve court efficiency are necessary, the priority should be ensuring that consumers’ rights — and, more importantly, their safety — are adequately protected. Ideally, more initial deliberation should have taken place before passing a bill with such irresolute support. Luckily, the committee can strive to keep this mind as SB 26 comes up for review.
Casey Mendoza is an Opinion Intern for the winter 2025 quarter. He can be reached at caseym4@uci.edu.
Edited by Zahira Vasquez and Jaheem Conley