California's Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act, Civil Code sections 1790 through 1795.8, is the statute that makes auto manufacturers repurchase defective vehicles. This guide walks the structure, the presumption, the remedies, the fee shifting, and the leading California case law.
Before 1970, warranty enforcement in California meant navigating the Uniform Commercial Code, hoping for a cooperative dealer, and hiring a lawyer on an hourly fee that usually exceeded the refund at stake. Manufacturers knew it. The Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act, sponsored by Assemblymen Alfred Song and Robert Beverly, corrected the imbalance. It imposed affirmative repair duties on manufacturers, created statutory remedies for failure to comply, and shifted attorney fees to the manufacturer so ordinary consumers could actually enforce warranty rights.
The statute has been amended repeatedly since 1970. The most consequential additions were the 1982 "Tanner Consumer Protection Act" amendments, codified as Civil Code 1793.22, which created the statutory presumption defining a "reasonable number of repair attempts" for new motor vehicles. Later amendments expanded coverage to leased vehicles, certified pre-owned vehicles via 1795.5, and certain small-business vehicles.
Civil Code section 1791 defines "consumer goods" as any new product or part thereof used, bought, or leased for use primarily for personal, family, or household purposes. Motor vehicles are consumer goods. Civil Code 1793.22(e)(2) extends coverage to certain business-registered vehicles under 10,000 pounds gross vehicle weight where the business has five or fewer vehicles registered in California.
Used consumer goods are covered via Civil Code 1795.5 whenever the distributor or retail seller issues a written warranty. That provision captures nearly every dealer-warrantied used car and every certified pre-owned vehicle sold in California.
Civil Code 1791.2 defines an express warranty. It includes any written statement arising out of a sale to the consumer affirming quality or providing for servicing. Civil Code 1791.1 imposes an implied warranty of merchantability on every sale of consumer goods by retail in California, coextensive with the express warranty period and running not more than 90 days after delivery for durable goods. An implied warranty of fitness arises under Civil Code 1792.1 when the seller has reason to know a particular purpose and the buyer relies on the seller's judgment.
Manufacturers of motor vehicles generally cannot disclaim the implied warranty of merchantability under Song-Beverly. The implied warranty runs as long as the express warranty for new vehicles, capped at one year by Civil Code 1791.1(c).
Section 1793.22(b) creates the presumption that a reasonable number of repair attempts has been exceeded. Within 18 months of delivery or 18,000 miles:
The buyer must have directly notified the manufacturer of the need for repair if the manufacturer has required that notice in writing. In practice, the manufacturer-authorized dealer is the manufacturer's agent for receipt of repair complaints, and notice to the dealer is notice to the manufacturer.
The presumption is not a ceiling. The underlying right to buyback exists under Civil Code 1793.2(d) whether or not the specific numerical thresholds are met. The presumption is a shortcut: meet the triggers and the manufacturer has the burden of proving the vehicle was conformed to the warranty.
Section 1793.2(b) requires the manufacturer to commence service or repairs within a reasonable time and complete them within 30 days. Section 1793.2(d)(2) then provides the buyback remedy. If the manufacturer or its representative is unable to service or repair a new motor vehicle to conform to the applicable express warranties after a reasonable number of attempts, the manufacturer must, at the buyer's option, either replace the vehicle or make restitution.
Restitution (buyback) under 1793.2(d)(2)(B): reimburse the buyer the actual price paid or payable, plus sales tax, registration, license fees, and incidental damages to which the buyer is entitled, less the statutory mileage offset.
Replacement under 1793.2(d)(2)(A): a substantially identical new motor vehicle, with the manufacturer paying the sales tax, registration, and license on the replacement.
Cash-and-keep: not a statutory category, but a negotiated settlement that permits the buyer to retain the vehicle and accept a cash payment reflecting diminished value and damages. Most manufacturers settle on cash-and-keep terms in borderline cases.
Section 1794(c) authorizes a civil penalty up to two times the amount of actual damages where the manufacturer's failure to comply was willful. "Willful" does not require malice. It requires a conscious choice, a knowing failure, or a deliberate avoidance of obligations. Jiagbogu v. Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC (2004) 118 Cal.App.4th 1235, remains a leading articulation of willfulness. California Civil Jury Instructions (CACI) 3244 mirrors the standard.
Section 1794(d) provides: "If the buyer prevails in an action under this section, the buyer shall be allowed by the court to recover as part of the judgment a sum equal to the aggregate amount of costs and expenses, including attorney's fees based on actual time expended, determined by the court to have been reasonably incurred by the buyer in connection with the commencement and prosecution of such action." The provision is one-way: manufacturers do not recover fees under 1794(d) when they prevail.
Fee shifting is what makes consumer enforcement meaningful. An hourly fee would swallow most buybacks. Contingency fee arrangements would erode the recovery the statute is supposed to deliver whole. The fee-shifting regime allows firms to take meritorious cases at no out-of-pocket cost to the client while preserving the statutory recovery intact.
Kirzhner v. Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC (2020) 9 Cal.5th 966 confirmed that recoverable amounts include registration renewal fees and certain charges that manufacturers previously tried to exclude. The California Supreme Court construed the statute's collateral-charges and incidental-damages language to encompass out-of-pocket costs directly flowing from the warranty breach, including non-manufacturer-installed option charges where the buyer cannot avoid them.
Section 1793.2(d)(2)(C) specifies the offset formula: purchase price × (miles driven before first repair attempt / 120,000). The offset applies only to miles accumulated before the first repair attempt for the nonconformity. Miles driven during the period the manufacturer was failing to repair do not increase the offset.
Niedermeier v. FCA US LLC (2024) 15 Cal.5th 503 clarified that restitution under 1793.2(d)(2)(B) is not reduced by the proceeds of a trade-in or resale when the manufacturer failed to comply with its repurchase obligations. The decision resolved a split among Court of Appeal decisions and protects consumers who, forced by circumstance, dispose of defective vehicles before the manufacturer completes a statutory buyback.
Section 1793.22(b)(3) requires that the buyer have directly notified the manufacturer of the need for repair if the manufacturer required written notice in a prominent place in the warranty. In practice, repair orders at authorized dealers are the operative notice. Section 1794(e) imposes additional requirements where the manufacturer maintains a qualified third-party dispute resolution process; even there, the Song-Beverly remedies remain available if arbitration fails.
The applicable limitations period for a Song-Beverly breach-of-written-warranty claim is generally four years under Commercial Code section 2725, subject to the discovery rule where the breach is not reasonably discoverable at the time of delivery. Claims grounded in implied warranty, fraud, or CLRA violations may have different limitations periods. Because limitations analysis is fact-specific, evaluate each claim with counsel.
The federal Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, 15 U.S.C. section 2301 and following, provides parallel warranty remedies at the federal level and allows fee recovery. Many California lemon law complaints plead both Song-Beverly and Magnuson-Moss. Magnuson-Moss claims can be useful for preserving federal court access in diversity matters, but the Song-Beverly remedies are typically more favorable for California consumers.
Free consultation. No fee unless we win. Manufacturer pays your fees under Civil Code 1794(d).