Cal. Civ. Code § 1790 et seq.
Song-Beverly: California's lemon law, and what the 2024 decisions changed
A claim in California superior courts · Last verified August 26, 2026
The Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act is why California has a lemon law industry. Two provisions do it: mandatory attorney's fees to a prevailing buyer, and a civil penalty of up to twice actual damages for a willful refusal to comply.
Filings tripled between 2015 and 2023. Then, in 2024, the California Supreme Court decided two cases that changed the shape of the claim — one narrowing who qualifies, one protecting what a winner recovers.
What the claim is
You bought a consumer product covered by a manufacturer's express warranty, it could not be fixed after a reasonable number of attempts, and the manufacturer will not refund or replace it.
Overwhelmingly this is vehicles. But Song-Beverly is not limited to cars — it covers consumer goods generally sold with an express warranty, which is the most commonly missed feature of the statute.
Where the right comes from
Civil Code § 1790 et seq., expanded by the Tanner Consumer Protection Act. Where Song-Beverly conflicts with the Commercial Code, Song-Beverly controls.
What a plaintiff has to prove
For a new motor vehicle claim:
- The vehicle had a nonconformity substantially impairing its use, value, or safety.
- The nonconformity was covered by the manufacturer's express warranty.
- The manufacturer or its agent failed to conform it after a reasonable number of repair attempts.
"A reasonable number" is where the Tanner presumption operates. If, within the warranty period or within 18 months or 18,000 miles — whichever comes first — the same nonconformity was subject to repair a specified number of times, or the vehicle was out of service for a cumulative number of days, a reasonable number of attempts is presumed.
The presumption is a shortcut, not a ceiling. A buyer who cannot invoke it can still prove unreasonableness directly, and many do.
Related instructions are in the CACI 3200 series.
How long you have to file
Four years, borrowed from the Commercial Code's warranty provision.
And the accrual rule is the trap. Under that provision, breach occurs on tender of delivery, and there is no general discovery rule — which would mean a defect surfacing in year five is time-barred even though nothing was findable earlier.
Two things soften it. A warranty that explicitly extends to future performance — a multi-year repair warranty does — accrues when the breach is or should have been discovered. And California appellate courts have applied the discovery rule to latent defects.
The accrual question on a latent defect is contested. Do not assume either answer; check the current state of the law before relying on a date.
What has to happen before you file
Give the manufacturer a reasonable opportunity to repair. Present the vehicle, let them try.
Character: a substantive element of the claim, not a pre-suit gate. The failure to conform the product after a reasonable number of attempts is the violation. There is nothing to cure and nothing to exhaust — without repair attempts there is no claim yet.
One qualified exception. If the manufacturer maintains a qualified third-party dispute resolution program meeting the statute's requirements, the buyer may have to use it before invoking the Tanner presumption. Note the limit: that affects the presumption, not the underlying claim. A buyer who skips a qualifying program can still prove unreasonableness the ordinary way.
Who can be sued — and who cannot
The manufacturer is the principal defendant. Retailers and distributors carry some obligations.
And here is the 2024 narrowing. In Rodriguez v. FCA US, LLC (2024) 17 Cal.5th 189, the Court held that a used car carrying only the unexpired balance of a manufacturer's new-car warranty is not a "new motor vehicle" for purposes of the refund-or-replace remedy.
That resolved a long-running split in the manufacturers' favour and removed a substantial category of cases — buyers of used vehicles still under factory warranty had been bringing lemon law claims on the strength of that warranty, and the flagship remedy is no longer available to them.
Other Song-Beverly protections, including implied warranty provisions, may still reach used goods. The decision narrowed the refund-or-replace remedy, not the whole statute.
Common defenses
The nonconformity was caused by abuse, neglect, or unauthorised modification.
The defect is not substantial — it does not impair use, value, or safety.
The vehicle is not a qualifying "new motor vehicle" — the Rodriguez defense.
No willfulness, which does not defeat the claim but eliminates the civil penalty.
The limitations period.
What the claim pays
Restitution or replacement, at the buyer's election. Restitution is a refund of the price paid, less a statutory mileage offset calculated on the miles driven before the first repair attempt for the nonconformity.
Incidental and consequential damages.
A civil penalty of up to two times actual damages for a willful violation. This is the provision that drives settlement, and willfulness is the fight in most cases.
Mandatory attorney's fees and costs to a prevailing buyer — a one-way fee statute. The manufacturer recovers nothing if it wins. That asymmetry is the engine of the entire practice area, and it is why a $30,000 vehicle claim is worth litigating.
And the 2024 protection. In Niedermeier v. FCA US LLC (2024) 15 Cal.5th 792, the Court held that neither a trade-in credit nor resale proceeds reduce the statutory restitution where the manufacturer's willful noncompliance forced the sale. A buyer who gave up and traded the car in does not have their recovery cut by what they got for it.
Jury trial: yes on damages and the civil penalty.
What people get wrong
"Song-Beverly is only for cars." No. It covers consumer goods sold with an express warranty. Vehicles dominate the docket, not the statute.
"I bought used, but it still had factory warranty, so I'm covered." Not for the refund-or-replace remedy, after Rodriguez (2024). Other protections may still apply.
"I need four repair attempts." The Tanner presumption specifies thresholds, but it is a presumption. You can prove unreasonableness without it.
"I traded the car in, so my claim is worth less." Not after Niedermeier (2024).
"My lawyer's fee comes out of my recovery." It does not. Fees are recoverable from the manufacturer on top of your restitution.
"The clock runs from when the defect appeared." Generally from delivery, subject to the future-performance and latent-defect arguments.
Where it came from
The Act was enacted in 1970, before most state lemon laws existed, and it was written broadly — all consumer goods, not just vehicles. The Tanner Consumer Protection Act added the vehicle-specific presumption in 1982.
The design choice that mattered was the one-way fee provision. Without it, a consumer with a defective $30,000 car would face a manufacturer with unlimited litigation resources and no realistic path to counsel. With it, the claim became economically viable, and a specialist plaintiffs' bar grew around it — seven firms filed a majority of the lemon law cases in a recent year.
The 2024 term produced the two most significant decisions in the statute's history, and they cut in opposite directions. Rodriguez narrowed who qualifies for the flagship remedy. Niedermeier protected the recovery of those who do.
Procedural reform legislation has also been active. Verify the current procedural requirements before filing — this area has moved repeatedly in recent sessions.
Common questions
Does the California lemon law only cover cars?
No. Song-Beverly covers consumer goods sold with an express warranty. Vehicles dominate the filings, but appliances, electronics, and other consumer products are covered too.
I bought a used car still under the factory warranty. Am I covered?
Not for the refund-or-replace remedy. In Rodriguez v. FCA US (2024) the California Supreme Court held a used vehicle carrying only the unexpired balance of a manufacturer's new-car warranty is not a "new motor vehicle." Other Song-Beverly protections may still apply.
How many repair attempts do I need?
There is no fixed number. The Tanner presumption sets thresholds that, if met within the warranty period or 18 months/18,000 miles, presume a reasonable number of attempts — but you can also prove unreasonableness without the presumption.
Will I have to pay my own attorney?
No, if you prevail. Song-Beverly requires the manufacturer to pay a prevailing buyer's reasonable attorney's fees and costs, and the manufacturer recovers nothing if it wins.
I already traded the car in. Does that reduce what I can recover?
No. Niedermeier v. FCA US (2024) held that trade-in credit and resale proceeds do not reduce statutory restitution where the manufacturer's willful noncompliance forced the sale.