In California, the final days of a frenzied legislation session often lead to a rush of complex bills that pass under looming deadlines and perhaps less oversight than would be prudent. A case in point may be the recently passed lemon law amendment imposing a deadline for consumers to seek refunds or replacements after purchasing cars with defects that render them “lemons” under the law.

The California lemon law, comprised of the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act (CIV 1792-1795.8) as amended by the Tanner Consumer Protection Act (CIV 1793.22), allows owners or lessees of defective vehicles to return their vehicle and get their money back or demand a replacement. The law covers vehicles during the manufacturer’s original warranty period with defects that substantially affect their use, value, or safety, and cannot be satisfactorily repaired after a reasonable number of attempts.

Some lemon law claims wind up being litigated in court, and such cases have been on the rise in recent years. In Los Angeles County, for example, lemon law cases account for ten percent of civil filings. This rise in litigation has led some lawmakers – prompted by the auto industry – to do something to reduce the number of cases being filed in court.

In response to the growing caseload of lemon law claims, Assembly Bill 1755 (AB1755) was written specifically to reduce the number of lawsuits that get filed in court. Under the new auto lemon law, consumers must now jump through a series of hoops before they can file a lawsuit. First, consumers must submit a written complaint to the manufacturer detailing the problem. The car company has thirty days to respond to the complaint and another 30 days after that to repair or replace the defect. Only after that 60-day period has passed can a consumer file a lawsuit in court, assuming their problem has not been resolved.

Additionally, the lemon law amendments made by AB1755 now impose a statute of limitations requiring that any such lawsuit must be commenced within one year after the expiration of the applicable express warranty. The law further imposes a statute of repose mandating that no lawsuit can be brought later than six years after the date of the vehicle’s original delivery to the consumer.

These limitations represent some of the most worrisome aspects of the new law, according to California lemon law attorney Nick Nita. “The six-year statute of repose applies even if the car is still under warranty,” Nita explains. “For example, even if a car comes with a ten-year, 100,000-mile warranty, a lemon law claim now cannot be brought after six years from delivery, even if problems occur during the warranty period that can’t be repaired by the dealer, which is the very definition of a lemon.”

Lack of Transparency Raises Questions About Law’s Merits

Critics of the latest legislation are saying the bill is a watered-down version of what it should be, and that it may lead to car owners having a more arduous time getting refunds.

Simultaneously, numerous critics and media outlets have been reporting that the complex new lemon law bill was not only rushed through the legislative process but also that it was drafted in secret meetings between lobbyists working for U.S. auto manufacturers and influential attorneys.

Millions of Californians depend upon the new Lemon Law bill, yet the secret sessions were held in private and included the hired lobbyists working for the auto firms plus powerful attorneys.

Yet in California, working behind closed doors on important bills, without transparency offered to the public, is business as usual.

State Senator Dave Min publicly told Assemblyman David Alvarez that it is a “policy” not to discuss certain items publicly while in session.

“We have a policy in the Senate … We don’t negotiate amendments from the dais,” Senator Min said to Assemblyman Alvarez. “We are happy to continue discussing this offline, but I just don’t think it’s appropriate – nor is it in the interest of our time – to be negotiating and discussing particular provisions from the dais.”

However, accusations of rubber-stamping bills that were drafted in private meetings, away from the public eye, are being raised by critics and fellow legislators alike. Non-profit organization CalMatters reports that “every vote cast in the past five years shows that Democrats who control the Legislature vote “no” on average less than 1% of the time, suggesting the fates of most bills are decided before votes are cast.”

Now, critics are calling for an overhaul of the bill.

Governor Gavin Newsom, who signed the bill a little over a month ago at the end of September, seems to agree. Although Governor Gavin Newsom signed the controversial new Assembly Bill 1755, he did so only with the agreement of the bill’s authors that they would introduce a new bill early in the 2025-26 legislative session to make the new procedures optional at the manufacturer’s discretion. Automakers who opt out of the amendments would be subject to the law as it existed before the changes wrought by AB 1755.

Although some manufacturers, such as GM and Ford, supported the bill and whose lobbyists may have had a hand in it, they are also the automakers who receive some of the most lemon law claims. Other car companies who receive far less complaints opposed the new legislation and claim not to have been involved in the process.

In his “signing message” addressed to the California State Assembly, Governor Newsom wrote, “This bill has drawn substantive opposition from several consumer groups and the majority of automakers, who were not party to the negotiations. While AB 1755 aims to speed resolution of lemon law claims and reduce litigation, many automakers … have expressed serious concerns.”

Furthermore, Governor Newsom urged in his message to the legislators that the Lemon Law should be revisited because of the major changes technology has brought to the automotive industry.

“The Lemon Law was enacted in 1970, before cars were equipped with a single computer (today they have as many as 100 separate computers and related electronic sensors) and decades before the first mass-produced electric vehicle,” he noted.

“While this issue was not the focus of (bill) AB 1755, I encourage the Legislature to consider whether additional updates to the Lemon Law are warranted.”

What those changes might be, and whether the new procedures mandated by AB 1755 will be made optional in the next legislative session, is anybody’s guess.