Los Angeles, California – Recent amendments to California’s automotive warranty legislation, commonly known as “lemon law,” are stirring significant discussion among legal circles and consumer rights groups. Richard Wirtz, founding attorney of Wirtz Law in San Diego, recently provided his insights to the Los Angeles Times regarding these changes and their potential impact on car consumers.

The Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act, a pivotal component of California’s consumer protection laws, grants vehicle owners recourse to refunds or replacements for defective vehicles that manufacturers or dealers cannot repair satisfactorily. However, with the enactment of Assembly Bill 1755, the landscape has shifted, introducing new complexities and challenges for consumers seeking relief under this law.

The legislation, a product of collaboration between the Consumer Attorneys of California and General Motors, aims to alleviate the court system’s burden by streamlining processes for lemon law claims. Yet, as Wirtz points out, the bill’s opt-in nature for manufacturers has spurred inconsistencies, complicating the legal framework intended to safeguard consumers.

Critics argue that the bill’s provisions, such as the pre-suit notification requirement and the obligation for consumers to retain possession of their defective vehicles during legal proceedings, impose undue burdens on vehicle owners. These stipulations are seen as shifting the financial and logistical load onto consumers, contrary to the protective intent of the original law.

One of the most contentious changes is the reduction in the timeframe for filing claims. “The single biggest impact of AB 1755 is the reduction in time for consumers to bring a claim,” Wirtz said. Previously, consumers had up to four years post-warranty to file, but now they have just one year, with a maximum of six years from the vehicle’s purchase date.

He highlighted particular concerns for brands offering warranties that are longer than six years, like Hyundai’s 10-year coverage. “Automakers no longer have to actually fix anything under the warranty because there are no consequences to them and no remedy for the consumers after six years.”

The law also sets forth requirements for expedited legal processes, including mandatory mediation and the early exchange of discovery for participating manufacturers. These changes are intended to expedite resolutions but have raised questions about fairness and accessibility.

Wirtz advocates for legislative clarity, emphasizing the necessity for the lemon law to unequivocally apply to any vehicle with an active new car warranty. “That is what the consumers in California need,” he stated, underscoring the importance of maintaining consumer protections amid evolving legal landscapes.

As California’s automotive market grapples with these legislative alterations, the dialogue among legal professionals, manufacturers, and consumer advocates continues to evolve, highlighting the ongoing complexity of balancing judicial efficiency with consumer rights.