Legislation updates brought a seismic shift to California’s consumer protection landscape with the implementation of AB 1755 (and related SB 26 reforms), the highly anticipated overhaul of the state’s Lemon Law. Touted as a path to faster, fairer dispute resolution, this legislation introduced critical new mandates, including mandatory mediation and stricter pre-suit notice requirements for defective new vehicles.
Here is the critical point every California car owner needs to understand: AB 1755 operates as an opt-in program for auto manufacturers.
While many carmakers have chosen to participate and embrace the new, streamlined process, some have not. If your vehicle’s manufacturer is one of the companies that did not opt into the AB 1755 reforms, what does that mean for your lemon law claim?
The Status Quo: Operating Under the Original Song-Beverly Act
When a manufacturer chooses the “status quo,” they are electing to avoid the new requirements—and, in doing so, they send their customers down an older, more traditional, and often longer path to justice.
The Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act is the bedrock of California’s Lemon Law, guaranteeing consumers the right to a repurchase or replacement vehicle when a new car cannot be repaired after a reasonable number of attempts. For non-opt-in manufacturers, this powerful law remains the governing procedure, but without the time-saving elements of AB 1755.
You are essentially operating in the legal system as it existed before the 2024 reforms. This primarily impacts three key areas: mediation, pre-suit notice, and the litigation process itself.
1. No Mandatory Pre-Litigation Mediation
One of the cornerstones of AB 1755 is the requirement for mandatory mediation before a consumer can file a lawsuit for restitution or replacement. This was designed to force both parties—the consumer and the manufacturer—to sit down with a neutral third party early in the process. The goal was simple: facilitate quick, out-of-court settlements, often resolving cases in months rather than years.
When the manufacturer does NOT opt in:
- You lose the mandatory mediation step. The path to the courtroom is often more direct. While voluntary mediation is always an option, the manufacturer is under no legal obligation to participate before a lawsuit is filed.
- The process becomes immediately more adversarial. The pressure to settle quickly is reduced, and the consumer’s first major action may be filing a formal complaint in court, a step that is inherently more time-consuming and costly.
2. No Specific Pre-Suit Written Notice Format
AB 1755 introduced a requirement that a consumer provide a detailed written notice to the manufacturer requesting repurchase or replacement before filing a lawsuit. This notice, which must be served 30 days prior to suit, was intended to standardize the pre-litigation communication, giving the manufacturer a formal, final chance to resolve the matter.
When the manufacturer does NOT opt in:
- The formal, standardized notice requirement is removed. Consumers must still assert their rights and notify the manufacturer of the defect, but the strict format and timing rules of AB 1755 do not apply.
- Negotiations can be less structured. While a demand letter from your attorney will always be the first step, the manufacturer is not subject to the same statutory clock for responding and obtaining formal resolution that the new law imposes.
3. Court Discovery Proceeds Normally
In an effort to speed up litigation for those who do opt in, AB 1755 stipulated that court discovery is stayed (paused) until the mandatory mediation process has concluded. This prevented manufacturers from using expensive, drawn-out discovery as a tactic to stall or pressure consumers before giving mediation a fair chance.
When the manufacturer does NOT opt in:
- Discovery begins immediately. Once a lawsuit is filed, the court process—including depositions, interrogatories, and requests for production of documents—will proceed in accordance with the normal rules of civil procedure.
- The path to resolution can be longer. Without the structured pause for mandatory mediation, the case may immediately become mired in the lengthy and expensive discovery phase, which is one of the primary reasons lemon law cases historically took so long to resolve. The goal of “months, not years” resolution is compromised.
Why Would a Manufacturer Choose the Old Rules?
You might ask why a carmaker would actively choose a slower, potentially more disruptive litigation process. The reasons are varied, but generally center on a philosophical objection or a preference for established internal processes:
- Opposition to the Reform: Some manufacturers opposed the passage of AB 1755, believing the new rules disproportionately shifted the burden onto them or that the strict timelines did not align with their existing internal claim resolution systems.
- Avoiding New Requirements: By staying out, they avoid the demanding new structure, mandatory disclosures, and sanctions for non-compliance established by AB 1755. They may prefer to face the less-defined risks of traditional litigation over the strict, fixed requirements of the new reforms.
A Powerful Law, Just a Different Process
It is critical to remember that a manufacturer’s decision to not opt into AB 1755 does not in any way reduce your fundamental rights as a consumer under California law.
- The Right to Remedy Remains: The core right to repurchase or replace a vehicle under the Song-Beverly Act when it cannot be repaired remains fully intact.
- Your Case is Still Strong: If your vehicle meets the definition of a “lemon”—meaning it has a substantial defect that impairs its use, value, or safety, and the manufacturer or dealer has been unable to repair it after a reasonable number of attempts—you still have a viable and important legal claim.
The Seven Law Advantage
For consumers dealing with a lemon vehicle, the manufacturer’s choice—opt-in or non-opt-in—means you face one of two very different legal procedures. Successfully navigating either path requires an attorney who knows the intricacies of both.
At Seven Law, our expertise in California Lemon Law covers both the streamlined, post-AB 1755 procedures and the traditional litigation framework of the original Song-Beverly Act.
- Facing an Opt-In Manufacturer: We know the new mandatory mediation timelines and strict disclosure rules, and we use them to expedite your claim.
- Facing a Non-Opt-In Manufacturer: We are prepared to pursue the full litigation track, understand how to structure your case for maximum efficiency in the traditional court system, and aggressively pursue your rights without the benefit of mandated pre-suit resolution steps.
If you have a defective new vehicle and are unsure which legal road you are on, don’t navigate the complex terrain of California Lemon Law alone. Contact Seven Law today for a consultation and let us put our specialized knowledge to work, ensuring your claim follows the fastest, fairest route possible, regardless of your manufacturer’s choice.