Lemon Law Demand Letter - California

CALIFORNIA SONG-BEVERLY ACT / TANNER ACT

LEMON LAW DEMAND LETTER

SENT VIA CERTIFIED MAIL, RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED
AND OVERNIGHT DELIVERY — SIGNATURE REQUIRED
AND FIRST-CLASS MAIL

[__/__/____]

[MANUFACTURER LEGAL NAME]
ATTN: Customer Relations / Legal Department / Lemon Law Compliance
[MANUFACTURER HEADQUARTERS ADDRESS]
[CITY, STATE ZIP]

AND TO:

[MANUFACTURER REGISTERED AGENT IN CALIFORNIA]
[REGISTERED AGENT ADDRESS]
[CITY, CALIFORNIA ZIP]

AND TO (IF APPLICABLE):

[AUTHORIZED DEALER NAME]
ATTN: General Manager / Service Director
[DEALER ADDRESS]
[CITY, CALIFORNIA ZIP]

Re: FORMAL DEMAND — CALIFORNIA SONG-BEVERLY CONSUMER WARRANTY ACT / TANNER CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT
Consumer/Owner: [CONSUMER FULL NAME]
Vehicle: [YEAR] [MAKE] [MODEL] [TRIM LEVEL]
VIN: [________________________________]
License Plate: [________________________________] (California)
Purchase/Lease Date: [__/__/____]
Purchase Price / Cap Cost: $[________________________________]
Mileage at Purchase: [________________________________]
Current Mileage: [________________________________]
Mileage at First Repair: [________________________________]
Total Days Out of Service: [________________________________]
Total Repair Attempts (Same Defect): [________________________________]

Dear Sir or Madam:

This law firm represents [CONSUMER FULL NAME] ("Consumer" or "Client") in connection with the purchase/lease of the above-referenced vehicle. The vehicle qualifies as a "lemon" under the California Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act, Cal. Civ. Code § 1790 et seq., and the Tanner Consumer Protection Act, Cal. Civ. Code § 1793.22. This letter constitutes formal notice of our Client's demand for repurchase (restitution) [or replacement] pursuant to Cal. Civ. Code § 1793.2(d).

California's Song-Beverly Act provides the strongest consumer warranty protections in the United States. The statute imposes affirmative duties on manufacturers that are non-waivable and that exist independently of any manufacturer's warranty. Violations subject manufacturers to mandatory attorney's fees and, where willful, civil penalties of up to twice actual damages.

I. CALIFORNIA LEMON LAW FRAMEWORK

A. The Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act — Cal. Civ. Code §§ 1790-1795.8

The Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act (often called the Song-Beverly Act) is California's comprehensive consumer warranty statute. It is not merely a lemon law — it is a full warranty enforcement statute that:

1. Requires manufacturers to service or repair covered nonconformities under applicable express warranties and, after a reasonable number of unsuccessful attempts, to replace or reimburse the buyer under the product-specific rules of Civil Code § 1793.2(d)
2. Mandates attorney's fees to any prevailing consumer
3. Provides civil penalties for willful violations
4. Provides distinct remedies for qualifying new motor vehicles and used goods sold with an applicable warranty; classify the sale and warranty before asserting the new-motor-vehicle refund remedy
5. Cannot be waived by contract, disclaimer, or arbitration clause (subject to Viking River Cruises, Inc. v. Moriana (2022) 142 S.Ct. 1906 and its California progeny)

B. The Tanner Consumer Protection Act — Cal. Civ. Code § 1793.22

The Tanner Consumer Protection Act (also known simply as the "Tanner Act"), enacted as § 1793.22, establishes a rebuttable presumption that a reasonable number of repair attempts have been made if, within the first 18 months or 18,000 miles of ownership (whichever occurs first), one of three conditions is met. The Tanner Act presumption simplifies the consumer's burden at trial and compels manufacturers to respond to lemon law demands seriously.

C. Duty to Repair — Cal. Civ. Code § 1793.2

Under Cal. Civ. Code § 1793.2(b), where the manufacturer maintains service and repair facilities in California, the manufacturer or its representative must begin necessary express-warranty repair within a reasonable time. Unless the buyer agrees otherwise in writing, repair must conform the goods within 30 days; conditions beyond the manufacturer's or representative's control extend that period, with conforming goods tendered as soon as possible afterward.

For a qualifying new motor vehicle, § 1793.2(d)(2), rather than (d)(1), applies when the manufacturer or its representative cannot conform the vehicle to the applicable express warranty after a reasonable number of attempts. The manufacturer shall either:

• Replace the vehicle with a new vehicle; OR
• Make restitution (refund) to the buyer

The choice of remedy belongs to the buyer — not the manufacturer. Cal. Civ. Code § 1793.2(d)(2).

D. Tanner Act Presumption Thresholds — Cal. Civ. Code § 1793.22(b)

A rebuttable presumption arises that a reasonable number of repair attempts have been made if, within 18 months from original delivery or 18,000 miles on the odometer, whichever occurs first:

Note on Days Out of Service: The 30 days are cumulative across all repair visits. Days waiting for parts, loaner vehicles, and manufacturer authorization count. The clock starts when the consumer delivers the vehicle and stops when it is returned in conforming condition.

Note on Post-Presumption Claims: Even after the 18-month/18,000-mile presumption period expires, consumers may still bring Song-Beverly claims during the full express warranty period. The burden shifts to the consumer to prove a reasonable number of repair attempts, but this remains achievable with strong repair history documentation.

E. California Covers Used Vehicles — Cal. Civ. Code § 1795.5

Used-vehicle warranty claims require a separate coverage analysis. A used vehicle sold with an applicable dealer warranty may have remedies under § 1795.5. A previously owned vehicle with only the unexpired balance of its original manufacturer warranty does not qualify as a "new motor vehicle" for § 1793.2(d)(2)'s refund-or-replace remedy. Under Rodriguez v. FCA US, LLC, S274625 (Cal. Oct. 31, 2024), the manufacturer’s new-car warranty must have been issued with the sale for that part of § 1793.22(e)(2) to apply. Do not assume a CPO label alone establishes that fact.

Our Client's vehicle and claim route: ☐ New motor vehicle ☐ Dealer-owned, demonstrator, or other vehicle with a manufacturer’s new-car warranty issued at this sale ☐ Used vehicle with an applicable dealer warranty under § 1795.5 ☐ Other warranty claim (identify authority): [____________________]

F. Civil Penalty for Willful Violations — Cal. Civ. Code § 1794(c)

If the buyer proves the manufacturer's failure to comply with Song-Beverly was willful, a court may include a civil penalty of up to two times actual damages in addition to those damages, subject to Cal. Civ. Code § 1794(c)'s exclusions for class actions and claims based solely on implied warranty.

Willfulness may be demonstrated by:

• Evidence that the manufacturer was aware of widespread similar complaints through Technical Service Bulletins (TSBs), technical hotlines, or the NHTSA complaints database
• Refusal to repurchase despite clear qualification under § 1793.22
• Evidence of internal policies to delay or deny lemon law claims
• Prior litigation or regulatory actions involving the same defect
• Manufacturer's failure to communicate timely with dealer during repair attempts

G. Mandatory Attorney's Fees — Cal. Civ. Code § 1794(d)

A consumer who prevails under the Song-Beverly Act shall recover a sum equal to the aggregate amount of costs and expenses, including attorney's fees based on actual time expended. This provision is mandatory, not discretionary. The court has no authority to deny fees to a prevailing consumer.

Attorney's fee awards in California lemon law cases routinely exceed $50,000-$150,000 in litigated matters, creating strong incentives for manufacturers to resolve pre-suit demands.

H. No Mandatory Pre-Suit Arbitration

Unlike federal Magnuson-Moss arbitration requirements in some warranty programs, California law does not require consumers to participate in arbitration before filing suit. Cal. Civ. Code § 1793.22(c) states the Tanner Act presumption does not apply in the consumer's favor if a DCA-certified arbitration program exists AND the consumer fails to use it — but the consumer may use the program, receive an unfavorable result, and still proceed to court with all rights preserved.

An arbitration clause may select an arbitral forum for Song-Beverly claims, depending on the clause and controlling law, but forum selection is distinct from eliminating a nonwaivable statutory remedy. McGill v. Citibank, N.A. (2017) 2 Cal.5th 945 holds that a predispute agreement may not waive the right to seek public injunctive relief in every forum; it does not make all public-injunction claims categorically non-arbitrable.

I. 2024–2025 Reform — AB 1755 / SB 26 Opt-In Framework

Effective in 2025, California added a third track for resolving lemon law disputes. AB 1755 (Kalra, Chapter 938, Statutes of 2024, signed September 29, 2024) and its clean-up bill SB 26 (Umberg, Chapter 1, Statutes of 2025, signed April 2, 2025) let a manufacturer voluntarily opt in to a new streamlined pre-litigation process codified at Cal. Code Civ. Proc. §§ 871.20–871.30. There are now three possibilities:

1. Manufacturer opted in to AB 1755 / SB 26 (the chapter applies only to a manufacturer that has affirmatively elected in under CCP § 871.29) — the CCP §§ 871.20–871.30 process governs. Key consequence for this demand: to preserve a civil-penalty claim under Civ. Code § 1794(c), the consumer must, at least 30 days before suit, notify the manufacturer (name, VIN, and a brief repair-history summary) and demand repurchase or replacement in writing (CCP § 871.24(a)); the manufacturer then has 30 days to offer restitution or replacement and must complete it within 60 days of receiving the notice (CCP § 871.24(e)). An action seeking only restitution or replacement may be filed without this notice, but then no civil penalties may be sought (CCP § 871.24(h)). A pre-litigation dispute over attorney's fees is resolved by neutral, binding arbitration (CCP § 871.24(f)). (This § 871.24 notice procedure became operative July 1, 2025.)
2. Manufacturer not opted in — the existing Song-Beverly / Tanner mandates described above apply, with no statutory pre-suit notice requirement.
3. Manufacturer certified through the DCA Arbitration Certification Program — the § 1793.22(c) arbitration framework applies.

ACTION ITEM: The DCA Arbitration Certification Program publishes the official list of opted-in manufacturers (updated by December 15 each year). Confirm whether [MANUFACTURER] appears on that list before relying on the "no pre-suit notice required" position — for opted-in manufacturers this letter should be framed as the written repurchase/replacement demand that starts the 30-day clock. Source: California DCA, "New Lemon Law Procedures," https://www.dca.ca.gov/acp/new_lemon_law.shtml.

J. CLRA and UCL Additional Claims

California consumers also have claims under:

• Consumer Legal Remedies Act (CLRA) — Cal. Civ. Code § 1750 et seq.: Prohibits misrepresentations in connection with sale of consumer goods; 30-day notice required before filing suit for damages (this letter constitutes that notice)
• Unfair Competition Law (UCL) — Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200 et seq.: Bars unlawful, unfair, or fraudulent business practices; available for public injunctive relief without class certification

II. VEHICLE INFORMATION

III. WARRANTY INFORMATION

A. Manufacturer's Express Warranty Coverage

CARB Note: California Air Resources Board (CARB) requires enhanced emission warranties on vehicles sold in California. Emission-related components are covered under extended CARB warranty terms that may differ from the manufacturer's national warranty.

All defects described in this letter arose during the applicable warranty period and continue to exist despite multiple repair attempts.

IV. DESCRIPTION OF NONCONFORMITY

A. Primary Nonconformity

The vehicle suffers from the following nonconformity that substantially impairs its use, value, or safety as required by Cal. Civ. Code § 1793.2:

Description of Defect:
[________________________________]
[________________________________]
[________________________________]

First Noticed (Date / Mileage): [__/__/____] / [________________________________] miles
How Defect Manifests (Symptoms): [________________________________]
Systems Affected: [________________________________]
Impact on Vehicle Use: [________________________________]
Impact on Vehicle Value: [________________________________]
Safety Risk: ☐ Yes — [________________________________] ☐ No

Defect Classification:

☐ Serious Safety Nonconformity — This defect is likely to cause death or serious bodily injury if the vehicle is driven (2-repair threshold applies under § 1793.22(b)(1))

☐ Substantial Impairment of Use, Value, or Safety — This defect substantially impairs one or more of these three elements (4-repair threshold applies under § 1793.22(b)(2))

B. Additional Nonconformities (If Any)

Second Nonconformity:
[________________________________]
First noticed: [__/__/____] / [________________________________] miles
Classification: ☐ Safety ☐ Use ☐ Value

Third Nonconformity:
[________________________________]
First noticed: [__/__/____] / [________________________________] miles
Classification: ☐ Safety ☐ Use ☐ Value

V. REPAIR HISTORY

Repair Attempt No. 1

Repair Attempt No. 2

Repair Attempt No. 3

Repair Attempt No. 4

[Add Repair Attempts No. 5, 6, etc. as needed using the same format above.]

Cumulative Repair Summary

VI. TANNER ACT QUALIFICATION

A. Presumption Triggered — Cal. Civ. Code § 1793.22(b)

Our Client's vehicle qualifies for the Tanner Act presumption because, within the first 18 months from original delivery ([__/__/____]) or 18,000 miles:

☐ Four (4) or More Repair Attempts — Same Nonconformity (§ 1793.22(b)(2)):
The defect described above as "[________________________________]" has been presented for repair [________________________________] times, equaling or exceeding the 4-repair threshold. The defect persists.

☐ Two (2) or More Repair Attempts — Serious Safety Defect (§ 1793.22(b)(1)):
The defect described as "[________________________________]" is likely to cause death or serious bodily injury and has been presented for repair [________________________________] times.

☐ More Than 30 Cumulative Days Out of Service (§ 1793.22(b)(3)):
The vehicle has been out of service for a cumulative total of [________________________________] calendar days, exceeding the 30-day threshold.

B. Alternative Song-Beverly Claim (Post-Presumption Period)

☐ Even if the Tanner Act presumption period has expired, the vehicle qualifies for repurchase/replacement under Cal. Civ. Code § 1793.2(d) because a reasonable number of repair attempts have been made (totaling [________________________________] attempts over [________________________________] days out of service) and the defect has not been remedied.

C. 30-Day Repair Obligation Violated — Cal. Civ. Code § 1793.2(b)

☐ [MANUFACTURER] and/or its authorized dealer failed to complete repairs within 30 calendar days on the following occasion(s), in violation of Cal. Civ. Code § 1793.2(b):

• Repair Attempt No. [___]: [________________________________] days out of service ([__/__/____] to [__/__/____])
• Repair Attempt No. [___]: [________________________________] days out of service ([__/__/____] to [__/__/____])

VII. ARBITRATION STATUS

Under Cal. Civ. Code § 1793.22(c), the Tanner Act presumption does not apply in the consumer's favor if the manufacturer maintains a DCA-certified arbitration program and the consumer has not used it.

☐ [MANUFACTURER] maintains a DCA-certified arbitration program. Our Client [has used / will use / elects not to use] the program. Any unfavorable arbitration decision does not bar our Client from proceeding to court.

☐ [MANUFACTURER] does not maintain a DCA-certified arbitration program. The Tanner Act presumption applies fully.

☐ Our Client proceeds directly to litigation. California law does not mandate pre-suit arbitration, and no arbitration clause in the purchase agreement can deprive our Client of the right to seek damages, restitution, and attorney's fees under Song-Beverly.

Important: Any attempt by [MANUFACTURER] to compel arbitration of our Client's Song-Beverly claims will be evaluated under the governing agreement and controlling law. Under McGill v. Citibank, N.A. (2017) 2 Cal.5th 945, a predispute agreement may not waive the right to seek public injunctive relief in every forum; McGill does not make such claims categorically non-arbitrable.

VIII. DEMAND FOR RELIEF

A. Primary Demand — Restitution (Buyer's Elected Remedy)

Our Client elects RESTITUTION pursuant to Cal. Civ. Code § 1793.2(d)(2)(B) and demands payment as follows:

For Purchase Transactions:

California Mileage Offset Formula — Cal. Civ. Code § 1793.2(d)(2)(C):

California uses a specific statutory formula that is more consumer-favorable than most states:

Offset = (Miles at First Repair Attempt) × (Purchase Price) ÷ 120,000

Calculation:

• Miles at first repair delivery: [________________________________]
• Purchase price: $[________________________________]
• Mileage offset = [________________________________] × $[________________________________] ÷ 120,000 = $[________________________________]

Important: The offset is calculated using the mileage at first repair, not current mileage. Every mile driven after first presenting the vehicle for repair is not counted against the consumer.

For Lease Transactions:

Additionally, [MANUFACTURER] must pay off the remaining lease balance owed to [LESSOR NAME] directly.

B. Alternative Demand — Replacement Vehicle

If our Client elects replacement, [MANUFACTURER] must provide, pursuant to Cal. Civ. Code § 1793.2(d)(2)(A):

• A new motor vehicle that is substantially identical to the vehicle replaced
• Replacement of all collateral charges (taxes, registration, fees)
• Payment of all incidental damages including transportation, rental, and out-of-pocket losses
• Satisfaction of any remaining loan or lease obligation on the defective vehicle

The buyer retains the right to elect restitution over replacement until a replacement vehicle is accepted.

C. Civil Penalty — Cal. Civ. Code § 1794(c)

[MANUFACTURER]'s failure to comply with Song-Beverly was willful because:

☐ [MANUFACTURER] maintained Technical Service Bulletins (TSBs No. [________________________________]) acknowledging the defect and a fix prior to our Client's repeated repair visits
☐ [MANUFACTURER]'s own engineers and field technical reps were consulted during repairs and failed to resolve the issue
☐ [MANUFACTURER] has received [________________________________]+ similar complaints on NHTSA.gov complaint database for this model year
☐ [MANUFACTURER] refused to repurchase despite acknowledging the defect
☐ [MANUFACTURER] engaged in delay tactics — [________________________________]
☐ [MANUFACTURER] is subject to pending or resolved litigation or regulatory action for the same defect: [________________________________]
☐ Other evidence of willfulness: [________________________________]

We reserve the right to seek the full civil penalty of two times actual damages ($[________________________________]) at trial.

D. Mandatory Attorney's Fees and Costs — Cal. Civ. Code § 1794(d)

As a prevailing consumer, our Client shall recover attorney's fees based on actual time expended by counsel. Attorney's fees accrued to date: $[________________________________]

E. CLRA Notice and Demand

Pursuant to Cal. Civ. Code § 1782(a), this letter constitutes 30-day notice of violations of the Consumer Legal Remedies Act (Cal. Civ. Code § 1750 et seq.). If [MANUFACTURER] does not remedy these violations within 30 days, our Client will file suit seeking actual damages, punitive damages, injunctive relief, and attorney's fees under the CLRA.

IX. SPOLIATION WARNING AND DOCUMENT PRESERVATION

[MANUFACTURER] AND ALL DEALERS ARE HEREBY DIRECTED TO IMMEDIATELY PRESERVE ALL EVIDENCE, including without limitation:

• All repair orders, warranty claims, and internal work orders for this vehicle
• All Technical Service Bulletins (TSBs), Customer Interest Bulletins (CIBs), and Field Technical Bulletins related to the reported defect(s) for this model year
• All Customer Complaint Index (CCI) and Customer Satisfaction Index (CSI) data for the same model
• All Field Service Reports (FSRs) and Technical Assistance Center (TAC) records for this vehicle
• All engineering analyses, root-cause investigations, and DFMEA records
• All warranty claims for the same defect codes from other [YEAR] [MAKE] [MODEL] vehicles
• NHTSA complaint database records involving the same defect
• Recall and Technical Campaign records for this vehicle/defect
• All communications between dealer and manufacturer regarding this vehicle's repair history
• The vehicle itself — do not destroy, repair beyond current state, sell, transfer, or alter

California does NOT recognize an independent tort for intentional first-party spoliation of evidence (Cedars-Sinai Med. Ctr. v. Superior Court (1998) 18 Cal.4th 1), but the intentional destruction, alteration, or concealment of relevant evidence still carries serious consequences: an adverse jury inference for willful suppression of evidence (Cal. Evid. Code Section 413) and the full range of discovery sanctions — monetary, issue, evidentiary, and terminating (Cal. Code Civ. Proc. Section 2023.030). See also Willard v. Caterpillar, Inc. (1995) 40 Cal.App.4th 892 (spoliation defined).

X. RESPONSE DEADLINE AND CONSEQUENCES

Please respond to this demand in writing within thirty (30) days of the date of this letter, providing:

1. Your acknowledgment of whether [CONSUMER FULL NAME]'s vehicle qualifies for repurchase or replacement under Cal. Civ. Code § 1793.2(d)
2. Your complete calculation of the restitution amount, including your proposed mileage offset calculation
3. A payment or vehicle replacement offer
4. Identification of all TSBs, recalls, or service campaigns relating to the reported defect

If we do not receive a satisfactory response within 30 days, our Client is authorized and prepared to:

☐ File suit in the California Superior Court, County of [________________________________]
☐ Seek full restitution plus the civil penalty of 2x damages for willful violation
☐ Seek mandatory attorney's fees and costs under § 1794(d)
☐ File a complaint with the California Department of Consumer Affairs — Arbitration Certification Program
☐ File a complaint with the California Attorney General — Consumer Law Section
☐ File a complaint with the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA)
☐ Pursue CLRA and UCL claims for public injunctive relief

XI. STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS

This action is timely. The statute of limitations for breach of written warranty under Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 337 is four (4) years from the date of the breach. Our Client's claim accrued no later than [__/__/____], and this demand is made within the limitations period.

XII. CONCLUSION

The California Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act was designed precisely to address the situation our Client faces: a consumer who purchases a vehicle in good faith, presents it for repair repeatedly and in good faith, and is left with a defective vehicle the manufacturer refuses to repurchase. California juries and judges are experienced with lemon law claims and are generally favorable to consumers who have documented their repair history.

The cost of resolving this matter now — through restitution or replacement — is far less than the cost of defending a California lemon law case, which will generate mandatory attorney's fees, potential civil penalties, and reputational exposure.

We strongly urge you to resolve this matter promptly.

Respectfully submitted,

[LAW FIRM NAME]

By: [________________________________]
[ATTORNEY NAME]
State Bar of California No. [________________________________]
[STREET ADDRESS]
[CITY, CALIFORNIA ZIP]
Telephone: [________________________________]
Email: [________________________________]

Attorneys for [CONSUMER FULL NAME]

ENCLOSURES:

☐ Copies of all repair orders (Repair Attempts No. 1-[___])
☐ Copy of purchase/lease agreement and sales contract
☐ Copy of all manufacturer warranty materials
☐ Vehicle registration (California DMV)
☐ Photographs and/or video evidence of defect
☐ TSBs obtained via NHTSA or FOIA (if available)
☐ Prior correspondence with manufacturer or dealer
☐ Loan/lease statements showing outstanding balance
☐ Authorization to represent client

cc: [CONSUMER FULL NAME], c/o [ADDRESS]
[LENDER/LESSOR NAME] (Attn: [________________________________])
California Department of Consumer Affairs — Arbitration Certification Program
California Attorney General — Consumer Law Section

CALIFORNIA LEMON LAW QUICK REFERENCE

CALIFORNIA PRACTICE NOTES

☐ Buyer Chooses the Remedy: The manufacturer cannot unilaterally substitute replacement for restitution. If the consumer demands a refund, the manufacturer must provide a refund (subject to mileage offset). See Cal. Civ. Code § 1793.2(d)(2).

☐ Used-vehicle route checked: Document who issued each warranty and whether it was issued with this sale. Do not treat a remaining original manufacturer warranty as enough for the new-motor-vehicle refund remedy.

☐ 120,000 Divisor Is California-Specific: Other states use different divisors (often 100,000 or 150,000). The 120,000 divisor is embedded in § 1793.2(d)(2)(C) and produces a lower mileage offset than many other states.

☐ Document Manufacturer Awareness: Evidence of TSBs, recalls, or prior lawsuits covering the same defect is critical to the willfulness/civil penalty claim. Use NHTSA.gov, PACER.gov, and FOIA requests.

☐ EV Claims Are Growing: With EV ownership expanding in California, battery degradation, charging failures, and software defects are increasingly common Song-Beverly claims. Battery warranties under CARB's ZEV mandate may extend beyond the manufacturer's standard warranty.

☐ Dealer vs. Manufacturer Liability: Under Kiluk v. Mercedes-Benz USA (2019) 43 Cal.App.5th 334, dealers are generally not liable under Song-Beverly unless they issue their own express warranty. However, dealers may be liable under CLRA and UCL for misrepresentations at point of sale.

☐ Class and Public-Relief Issues Require Clause Review: Song-Beverly claims may be asserted on a class basis where procedural and substantive requirements are met. Under McGill, a predispute agreement may not waive public injunctive relief in every forum, but the decision does not make every such claim categorically non-arbitrable.

☐ No Cap on Attorney's Fees: Song-Beverly attorney's fees are based on actual time expended at market rates. There is no lodestar cap. This creates strong pre-suit settlement incentives.

SOURCES AND REFERENCES

• Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act (Cal. Civ. Code §§ 1790-1795.8): https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?sectionNum=1790.&lawCode=CIV
• Tanner Consumer Protection Act (Cal. Civ. Code § 1793.22): https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?sectionNum=1793.22.&lawCode=CIV
• California DCA — Arbitration Certification Program: https://www.dca.ca.gov/acp/
• California DCA — New Lemon Law Procedures (AB 1755 / SB 26 opt-in framework and manufacturer list): https://www.dca.ca.gov/acp/new_lemon_law.shtml
• AB 1755 (2024): https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=202320240AB1755 · SB 26 (2025): https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=202520260SB26
• California Attorney General — Consumer Protection: https://oag.ca.gov/consumers
• NHTSA Vehicle Complaints Database: https://www.nhtsa.gov/vehicle/complaints
• NHTSA TSB and Recall Search: https://www.nhtsa.gov/vehicle-safety/recalls
• California Courts — Lemon Law Resources: https://www.courts.ca.gov/selfhelp-lemonlaw.htm
• Kiluk v. Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC (2019) 43 Cal.App.5th 334
• Murillo v. Fleetwood Enterprises, Inc. (1998) 17 Cal.4th 985 (Song-Beverly scope)
• Jensen v. BMW of North America, Inc. (1995) 35 Cal.App.4th 112
• McGill v. Citibank, N.A. (2017) 2 Cal.5th 945 (predispute waiver of public injunctive relief in every forum is unenforceable)
• California Lemon Law Group (consumer resource): https://www.californialemons.com/
• CARB ZEV Warranty Requirements: https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/our-work/programs/zero-emission-vehicle-program

This template is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. California's Song-Beverly Act is among the most complex and consumer-favorable warranty statutes in the United States. Consult a licensed California attorney experienced in lemon law before use.