How many repair attempts make a car a lemon in California?

How many repair attempts for lemon law protection in California? People expect one fixed number. The law does not work that way. California's Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act requires a manufacturer to buy back or replace a new vehicle once it has had "a reasonable number of attempts" to fix a warranty defect and failed. The Tanner Act adds a presumption that tells you when the number is presumed reasonable, but the presumption is only one route.

This guide sets out the three presumption tests, how claims succeed outside them, the separate 30-day repair rule, and a checklist for your repair orders. It is general information about California law as of October 2026, not legal advice.

The basic rule: a "reasonable number of attempts"

Under Civil Code § 1793.2(d)(2), if the manufacturer or its repair shops cannot make a new motor vehicle match its express warranty after a reasonable number of attempts, the manufacturer must promptly replace the vehicle or make restitution. You, not the manufacturer, choose between a refund and a replacement.

The statute does not define "reasonable." Juries decide it on the facts. California's civil jury instructions tell jurors that the manufacturer generally must have had at least two opportunities to repair the vehicle (CACI No. 3202). One attempt usually is not enough, with narrow exceptions, such as when the vehicle was destroyed after the first attempt or the manufacturer refused to try.

The Tanner Act presumption: the three tests

The presumption is in Civil Code § 1793.22(b). It applies only to new motor vehicles, and only to events within 18 months from delivery to the buyer or 18,000 miles on the odometer, whichever comes first. Within that window, a reasonable number of attempts is presumed if any one of the following is true:

1. Two attempts for a serious safety defect. The same nonconformity has been subject to repair two or more times by the manufacturer or its agents, the nonconformity is likely to cause death or serious bodily injury if the vehicle is driven, and the buyer has at least once directly notified the manufacturer of the need for the repair.
2. Four attempts for the same defect. The same nonconformity has been subject to repair four or more times by the manufacturer or its agents, and the buyer has at least once directly notified the manufacturer of the need for the repair.
3. More than 30 days out of service. The vehicle has been out of service because of repair of nonconformities by the manufacturer or its agents for a cumulative total of more than 30 calendar days since delivery to the buyer. The days do not have to be in a row, and they can add up across different defects. The 30-day limit is extended only if repairs cannot be performed because of conditions beyond the control of the manufacturer or its agents.

A "nonconformity" means a defect covered by the warranty that substantially impairs the use, value or safety of the vehicle.

The direct-notice requirement

Tests 1 and 2 include notice to the manufacturer itself, not only to the dealer. But the statute makes that notice a requirement only if the manufacturer clearly and conspicuously disclosed the Tanner Act rules to you, with the warranty or the owner's manual, including the requirement that you notify the manufacturer directly, and gave the name and address to send it to. Check the warranty booklet. If the notice requirement is there, follow it. A short letter or email to the address the booklet lists, with your VIN, the problem and the repair dates, is the usual way to give it, and keep proof that you sent it. The 30-day test has no direct-notice element.

The presumption can be rebutted

The presumption is not automatic victory. The manufacturer can try to prove that, under all the circumstances, it did not get a reasonable opportunity to repair. And if the manufacturer runs a state-certified dispute resolution program and told you about it in writing, § 1793.22(c) says you must use that program before you can rely on the presumption. You can still sue without using the program; you just cannot lean on the presumption. Our guide to lemon law arbitration versus a lawsuit explains that choice.

Claims outside the presumption

Many good cases never meet the presumption, which is a shortcut, not a requirement. You may still have a claim if:

• the problems started after 18 months or 18,000 miles but while the vehicle was still under the manufacturer's express warranty;
• the vehicle had three visits, not four, for a defect that is serious but arguably not life-threatening;
• you have several different defects, each with two or three visits, and together they show the manufacturer could not deliver a working vehicle;
• the dealer kept saying it "could not duplicate" the problem.

What counts as a repair attempt

A repair attempt, in the jury instruction's words, is an "opportunity to repair." Each time you deliver the vehicle to the manufacturer's authorized repair facility for a covered problem counts as an opportunity, even if the shop did not do any repair work. The instruction cites a Court of Appeal decision holding that the buyer's job is to give the manufacturer a reasonable chance to fix the car; whether the shop uses that chance is not the buyer's responsibility.

That has practical consequences:

• "Could not duplicate" visits count. If the dealer road-tested the car and found nothing, the visit can still be an opportunity, as long as the repair order shows you reported the problem.
• Recall repairs can count when the recall addresses the defect you have been reporting, and repeat recall repairs on the same component can show a problem that is not getting fixed. Our recall and complaint lookup searches NHTSA's data for your model.
• Visits at different authorized dealers all count.
• Independent shop visits are different. They generally do not give the manufacturer an opportunity, though the receipt is still evidence.
• "Same nonconformity" means the same symptom, not the same part. If the shop replaced a sensor one time and a module the next for the same stalling, those are attempts on one defect.

The 30-day repair rule in § 1793.2(b)

Separate from the Tanner Act, Civil Code § 1793.2(b) says that unless the buyer agrees in writing otherwise, goods must be serviced or repaired so as to conform to the warranty within 30 days. Delay caused by conditions beyond the manufacturer's control extends that period. A violation can support a damages claim under § 1794.

If the service desk asks you to sign something agreeing to a longer repair time, read it first. You do not have to agree.

Repair orders: what § 1793.1 requires the shop to give you

Your repair orders are the case. Civil Code § 1793.1(a)(2) requires every work order or repair invoice for warranty repairs to carry a notice in 10-point boldface. Among other things, it tells the buyer that the warranty period is extended for the number of whole days the product was out of the buyer's hands for warranty repairs, and that if a defect exists within the warranty period, the warranty will not expire until the defect has been fixed. A copy of the work order and any attachment must be given to the buyer at the time warranty service or repairs are made.

Under Civil Code § 1795.6(d), repair work orders must also show the date the vehicle was returned to you. Those dates are what prove the 30-day test. If the dealer will not open a repair order because it "can't find anything," write down the date and the advisor's name, and follow up by email.

A repair-attempt checklist

Use this list for each repair visit, printed or on your phone.

A hypothetical example

Hypothetical: At 4,000 miles, Maria's new SUV's brakes grab; the dealer writes "could not duplicate." At 7,500 miles it happens again and the dealer replaces a sensor. Her warranty booklet asks for direct notice, so she emails the listed address. At 9,000 miles it happens again.

Maria has two attempts on a defect arguably likely to cause serious injury, within the window, plus direct notice. That may meet the first test, and the history supports a claim under the general rule either way. For more on safety problems, see our guide to brake, steering and airbag defects under the lemon law.

What to do next

1. Gather every repair order, from every dealer, plus your contract and warranty booklet.
2. Count the visits per problem and the total days in the shop. Our does my car qualify tool walks through the tests.
3. Do not sell or trade the vehicle before you get advice. For manufacturers that opted in to the 2025 procedures, selling too early can cost you the civil penalty; see the 2025 changes under AB 1755.
4. Watch the deadline. For opted-in manufacturers, a lawsuit generally must be filed within one year after the warranty expires and no more than six years after delivery. For others, the limit has generally been four years under the Commercial Code's warranty statute of limitations, and tolling rules can apply. Call promptly either way.
5. Bought used? See used car lemon law in California.

LaCour Trial Lawyers reviews California lemon law claims statewide, in English and Spanish. A successful buyer recovers attorney's fees and costs from the manufacturer under § 1794(d). Send us your repair orders for a free, confidential review.

Frequently asked questions

This guide is general information about California and federal law and about public records as of its date. It is not legal advice, and reading it or contacting us does not create an attorney–client relationship. Allegations in lawsuits are claims, not findings. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Attorney advertising.