California Lemon Law Requirements: The Presumption Test Explained

Last reviewed September 10, 2026.

You do not need to meet these conditions to have a valid lemon law claim — you can still win a case with fewer repair attempts if you can show the number given was “reasonable” under the circumstances. What this page describes is a legal shortcut: meet one of these three conditions, and the law presumes your case clears that bar, shifting the burden to the manufacturer to prove otherwise.

This is governed by Civil Code §1793.22(b), the Tanner Consumer Protection Act.

The 18-month / 18,000-mile window

All three conditions below must occur within 18 months of the vehicle’s delivery to you, or within the first 18,000 miles on the odometer — whichever happens first.

Condition 1: Safety defect, two or more repair attempts

• The same defect has been brought in for repair two or more times, and
• That defect is one that is likely to cause death or serious bodily injury if the vehicle is driven, and
• You directly notified the manufacturer — not just the dealer — of the need to repair that defect, at least once.

Condition 2: Non-safety defect, four or more repair attempts

• The same defect has been brought in for repair four or more times, and
• The defect substantially impairs the vehicle’s use, value, or safety, and
• You directly notified the manufacturer at least once.

Condition 3: 30 or more days out of service

• The vehicle has been out of service for repairs — for one defect or several — for a cumulative total of more than 30 calendar days since delivery.
• Days don’t need to be consecutive; they add up across separate repair visits.
• This condition does not require you to separately notify the manufacturer directly — unlike Conditions 1 and 2.
• The 30-day count can be extended if the delay was caused by conditions beyond the manufacturer’s control (for example, a documented parts shortage).

The notification requirement — the detail most guides skip

Conditions 1 and 2 both require that you personally notified the manufacturer of the need for repair — a dealer visit alone does not satisfy this. Practically, this means:

• Send notice to the address the manufacturer specifies in your warranty booklet or owner’s manual (see our manufacturer notice directory — the same addresses used for the separate §871.24 pre-litigation notice are typically listed there).
• Do this in writing, and keep proof of when you sent it.
• Do it as early as possible — ideally after your first or second repair attempt, not after your fourth, so you have this covered before you need to rely on the presumption.

This single step is the one people miss most often, because it feels redundant with taking the car to the dealer. It isn’t — the dealer and the manufacturer are treated as legally distinct for this purpose.

The mandatory-arbitration caveat

If the manufacturer has a qualified third-party dispute resolution process (see manufacturers and arbitration programs for which brands have DCA-certified arbitration), and you received timely written notice of that program and how it works, you may not assert this presumption in court until you’ve first gone through that arbitration process.

In practice: if your brand participates in BBB Auto Line, CDSP, or CAP-Motors, and your warranty paperwork told you about it, check whether you’re required to try that route before relying on the presumption in a lawsuit. This doesn’t bar you from ever suing — it can affect the order of operations and whether you can invoke the presumption immediately.

What happens if you meet the presumption

Meeting a presumption condition doesn’t end the process — it shifts the burden. The manufacturer can still argue that, given the circumstances, the number of repair attempts was reasonable (for example, if delays were outside their control). California’s Civil Jury Instructions (CACI No. 3203) reflect exactly this structure: once the buyer proves the presumption conditions, the repair attempts are treated as reasonable unless the manufacturer proves otherwise.

If you don’t meet any of these

You can still have a valid claim. Courts have found “reasonable number of attempts” satisfied with fewer repairs than the presumption requires, particularly for serious or safety-related defects. The presumption is a shortcut, not a gate. Use the case evaluation form to have your specific repair history reviewed regardless of whether you hit these exact numbers.

Related pages

/buyback/ — what you can recover and how the offset is calculated · /time-limit/ — filing deadlines · /manufacturers/ — notice addresses and arbitration programs by brand

Worked example

Say your new SUV’s transmission has been in for repair three times for the same shuddering/hesitation problem, and you’ve directly emailed the manufacturer about it once, all within your first 14 months and 11,000 miles of ownership. You haven’t yet hit the four-repair threshold for Condition 2 — but if the car has also been out of service a cumulative 34 days across those three visits, you independently satisfy Condition 3 (30+ cumulative days), which requires no separate manufacturer notification. You’d likely qualify for the presumption on that basis alone, even one repair attempt short of the four-attempt count.

Frequently asked questions

How many repair attempts does California lemon law require? There’s no fixed minimum for a valid claim — “reasonable number of attempts” is a factual question. But the law creates a presumption shortcut at two attempts for a safety-related defect, or four attempts for a non-safety defect, both requiring direct manufacturer notification. A cumulative 30+ days out of service creates the presumption independently, without a repair-count minimum or notification requirement.

Does telling the dealer count as notifying the manufacturer? No. Conditions 1 and 2 of the presumption test specifically require that you directly notified the manufacturer — not just the dealer — of the need for repair. Use the notice addresses on our manufacturers page.

What if my manufacturer has mandatory arbitration? If your manufacturer has a DCA-certified arbitration program and you received proper written notice of it, you may need to go through that arbitration before you can assert the presumption in court. See manufacturers and arbitration programs for which brands this applies to.

Sources

Civil Code §1793.22 — leginfo.legislature.ca.gov. Judicial Council of California Civil Jury Instructions (CACI) No. 3203, “Reasonable Number of Repair Opportunities.”

This page is attorney advertising and general information, not legal advice. Whether your specific repair history satisfies these conditions is a factual determination; consult the case evaluation form or an attorney. See our terms and privacy policy.