A Consumer Protection and Employment Law Firm Serving California, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Illinois.

How does California’s Lemon Law work?

Table Of Contents
Summarize with
ChatGPT Claude Gemini Perplexity Grok

Buying a car should be an exciting event. Many of us only buy a new car a few times in our lives, and finding the right vehicle is a huge investment. So it is disheartening when the car has a major malfunction shortly after you drive it off the dealership’s lot.

In the past, buyers were often left with a junk car, with the dealership and manufacturer claiming zero responsibility to fix or replace the defective parts. Today, California consumers can take action against unscrupulous dealers through the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act.

This state law, also known as the Lemon Law, gives help to people who bought a new vehicle that cannot be fixed. If a vehicle is under warranty but cannot be repaired after a “reasonable number” of attempts, the manufacturer must promptly replace it or give the buyer or lessee a full refund.

Not all vehicles are revealed to be lemons within the first few months that you own them. The Lemon Law protects consumers through the entire term of the warranty. So, if your warranty lasts for three years, and the car breaks down two years and six months into the warranty, the Lemon Law applies.

One-time lemons happen, but often the defect is widespread due to problems with the automaker’s manufacturing or design of that model of vehicle. Car companies are big and powerful, but if a group of wronged buyers band together as a class and file suit, the company may have to sit up and pay attention.

Quick Navigation

Free Consultation

Undisclosed
Settlement

TCPA class action against the Los Angeles Times. Final approval granted 2014.

More Details
$750,000
Settlement

Common fund class-wide TCPA settlement against home healthcare provider. Final approval granted.

More Details
$27.6M
Settlement

TCPA class action certified on behalf of approximately 2,000,000 class members under Rule 23(b)(2) and (b)(3). Subsequently settled on a Rule 23(b)(2) and (b)(3) basis. Final approval granted.

More Details
$5.2M
Settlement

/

Unruh Act class action on behalf of approximately 240,000 consumers challenging Tinder’s age-based differential pricing for its subscription service. Final approval granted; subsequently went up on appeal.

More Details
$390,000
Settlement

TCPA class action alleging HD Supply sent unauthorized marketing text messages to consumers’ mobile phones without consent between October 21, 2011 and July 26, 2017. Presided over by Judge Fernando M. Olguin. Case terminated January 29, 2018.

More Details
$1,500,000
Settlement

/

TCPA class action against a Kansas-based payday lender alleged to have contacted consumers via prerecorded calls on their cell phones to collect alleged debts without consent. California federal judge granted final approval.

More Details
$6,500,000
Settlement

/

Cal. Penal Code § 632.7 class action certified by contested motion under Rule 23(b)(2) and (b)(3) on behalf of over 40,000 class members whose calls were recorded without their knowledge or consent. Final approval granted.

More Details
$13,000,000
Settlement

/

$13 Million Class action alleging HSBC recorded consumer telephone calls without knowledge or consent in violation of California’s Privacy Statute (Penal Code § 632.7). California Federal Judge granted final approval.

More Details
$34,000,000
Settlement

/

One of the largest TCPA class action settlements in U.S. history at time of approval. Alleged Chase used an automatic telephone dialing system to contact consumers on their cell phones without prior express consent from July 2008 through December 2013. Settlement class included over 32 million members. Final approval granted March 2016.

More Details
$150,000,000
Settlement

/

Class action on behalf of over 100,000 owners of GM vehicles equipped with allegedly defective LG-manufactured batteries posing fire and safety risks. Litigation commenced December 2020. U.S. District Judge Terrence G. Berg indicated preliminary approval of the $150 million settlement.

More Details
$100,000,000
Settlement

/ /

Landmark gig-economy class action. DoorDash drivers in California and Massachusetts alleged they were wrongly classified as independent contractors rather than employees. Firm served as class counsel. Final approval granted January 13, 2022 — the largest gig-economy worker class settlement in U.S. history at the time.

More Details

Office Locations

Copyright 2025 Law Offices of Todd M. Friedman, P.C. All Rights Reserved.