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

Is your car a lemon?

Table Of Contents
Summarize with
ChatGPT Claude Gemini Perplexity Grok

Almost every day we hear of another vehicle recall, but no one really cares unless your car is in the “recall list”.

recall is a request to return to the manufacturer an entire production run of a certain make and model of vehicle, usually due to the discovery of safety issues. When this happens, car owners  are requested to take their vehicles to the manufacturer’s official repair facilities for investigation and repair if needed.  But the problem is that not all car owners respond to the request. According to Carfax there were more than 2.7 million used vehicles for sale over the Internet in 2011 with safety recalls that were never fixed.

If a manufacturer officially announces a recall for a model line, consumers hardly ever face any problems to get their cars repaired for free, cause that’s an obvious consequence of a recall. But more often car consumers come up with vehicle defects and problems outside of safety recalls and here’s where the real troubles begin. Not every manufacturer will accept its wrong and be willing to buyback your car or replace it with a new one. You need to prove that the car is a lemon and that you are eligible to demand certain compensation under the state lemon law.

In California,  if the manufacturer has performed at least 2 repair attempts or the car has been under repair for at least 30 calendar days within 18 months from delivery of the car or 18,000 miles, whichever occurs first, then the car is quite likely to be legally considered a lemon.

If you think you own a lemon, please call my office, The Law Office of Todd M. Friedman for a free consultation at (877) 449-8898.

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.