The Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act, Explained
What the Song-Beverly Act actually says, how it relates to the Tanner Consumer Protection Act, and where 'California lemon law' fits within it.
Last reviewed 10 September 2026
Last reviewed September 10, 2026.
“California lemon law” isn’t the official name of any single statute — it’s the common name for a set of protections built primarily on the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act, codified at Civil Code §§1790–1795.8.
What Song-Beverly actually is
Song-Beverly is a general consumer-warranty law — it applies to most consumer goods sold with a warranty in California, not just vehicles. Its core rule (§1793.2) requires that if a manufacturer can’t repair goods to conform to the warranty after a reasonable number of attempts, it must replace the goods or refund the buyer.
Vehicles are simply the area where this law gets used most often and has the most developed case law, largely because of how expensive and safety-relevant a defective car is compared to, say, a defective appliance.
Where the Tanner Act fits in
Within Song-Beverly, Civil Code §1793.22 — officially the Tanner Consumer Protection Act — adds vehicle-specific rules, most importantly the presumption test (18 months/18,000 miles, repair-attempt counts, and cumulative out-of-service days) that makes it easier for car buyers specifically to establish that “a reasonable number of attempts” has been met.
So when people talk about “the lemon law,” they’re usually describing the combination of:
- Song-Beverly’s general remedy (§1793.2) — repair, replace, or refund.
- The Tanner Act’s presumption (§1793.22) — a vehicle-specific shortcut for proving you’ve met the “reasonable attempts” bar.
- As of 2025, an optional new procedural track under Code of Civil Procedure §§871.20–871.30 (AB 1755/SB 26) that some manufacturers have adopted — see manufacturers and deadlines.
Key sections at a glance
| Section | What it covers |
|---|---|
| Civil Code §1793.2 | The core repair/replace/refund obligation |
| Civil Code §1793.22 | The Tanner Act presumption test |
| Civil Code §1794(c) | Civil penalty up to 2x damages for willful violations |
| Civil Code §1794(d) | Manufacturer pays attorney’s fees if you win |
| Civil Code §1791.1(c) | Implied warranty duration limits |
| CCP §§871.20–871.30 | New optional procedural track (AB 1755/SB 26) |
Why the name matters less than the substance
You’ll see “Song-Beverly Act,” “Tanner Act,” and “California lemon law” used interchangeably online, sometimes inconsistently even by attorneys. What actually matters for your case isn’t which name you use — it’s which specific section applies to your facts. Use /requirements/ to check the presumption test, and /manufacturers/ to check which procedural track applies to your brand.
Related pages
/requirements/ · /time-limit/ · /buyback/ · /manufacturers/
Sources
Civil Code §§1790–1795.8; Civil Code §1793.22 — leginfo.legislature.ca.gov.
This page is attorney advertising and general information, not legal advice. See our terms and privacy policy.