California Lemon Law FAQ

What Changed With AB 1755 in 2025?

✓ Reviewed by Jacob Shayesteh, Esq. · Updated 2026-03-25
QUICK ANSWER
Short Answer

AB 1755, effective January 1, 2025, requires mandatory mediation before a lemon law lawsuit can be filed in California. This replaced the informal demand-letter process. Your attorney initiates the mediation process — there is no requirement for consumers to personally send demand letters to manufacturers.

✓ Verified Filing & Process

AB 1755, signed into law and effective in 2024–2025, is the most significant change to California lemon law in decades. It restructured the process by which lemon law claims are handled before they reach court, adding mandatory pre-litigation mediation and new disclosure requirements. If you are filing a lemon law claim today, understanding AB 1755 is essential to understanding your timeline and obligations.

What AB 1755 Changed

Before AB 1755, a California consumer with a lemon law claim could give the manufacturer written notice of a final repair opportunity and then, if the manufacturer failed to resolve the claim, file a lawsuit directly. The pre-litigation process was relatively informal — there was no mandatory third-party process between demand and filing.

AB 1755 inserted a mandatory mediation step into this process. Under the new law, before a consumer can file a lemon law lawsuit, the manufacturer must be given an opportunity to respond to a formal demand and participate in mediation administered by a qualified neutral mediator. The legislature’s stated intent was to encourage faster resolution of legitimate claims without the cost and delay of litigation.

The New Pre-Litigation Timeline

Under AB 1755, the pre-litigation process works as follows:

  • Consumer sends a written demand to the manufacturer invoking Song-Beverly rights and requesting repurchase, replacement, or other remedy
  • Manufacturer has 30 days to respond with either an offer or a request for mediation
  • If mediation is requested, the parties participate in a mediation session with a neutral mediator
  • If mediation fails or the manufacturer does not engage in good faith, the consumer may proceed to file suit in California Superior Court

The exact deadlines and procedures are still evolving as courts and practitioners apply the new law. An experienced lemon law attorney will have the most current understanding of the specific requirements.

Does AB 1755 Help or Hurt Consumers?

The answer depends on the circumstances. For consumers with strong, clearly documented cases, AB 1755 can accelerate resolution — a manufacturer facing a 30-day response deadline and mandatory mediation has strong incentives to make a real offer rather than stonewall. Many practitioners have found that manufacturers are engaging more seriously in early negotiations under AB 1755 than they did under the prior informal process.

On the other hand, AB 1755 adds a procedural step that must be properly followed before filing suit. Consumers who skip this step or do not comply with the notice requirements may face procedural obstacles in court. This is another reason why hiring a lemon law attorney before sending any demands is strongly advisable — the attorney ensures all AB 1755 procedural requirements are satisfied correctly.

The Pre-Litigation Demand Letter Under AB 1755

Under AB 1755, the written demand sent to the manufacturer must include specific information: a description of the defect, a summary of repair history, and the remedy sought (repurchase, replacement, or other relief). The demand must be sent to the manufacturer’s designated recipient for lemon law demands — not the local dealer. Your attorney will know exactly where and how to send this demand to start the AB 1755 clock running properly.

What If the Manufacturer Ignores the Demand?

If the manufacturer fails to respond within the required period, or responds but refuses to mediate, or mediates in bad faith, the consumer may proceed to file suit immediately. A manufacturer’s failure to engage in good faith under AB 1755 is itself evidence of willfulness that can support a civil penalty claim at trial. Manufacturers know this — which is why most engage with the AB 1755 process even if they intend to contest the underlying claim.

Related Questions

Not Sure If You Qualify?
Get a free case review from Wynn Law Group. The manufacturer pays our fees if you win — you pay nothing upfront.
Get a Free Case Review →