Mandatory mediation under AB 1755 is a required step before filing a lemon law lawsuit in California. Your attorney requests mediation and represents you throughout the process. It typically concludes within 60 days and often results in a settlement without going to trial.
AB 1755, California’s 2024 update to the lemon law process, introduced mandatory mediation as a required step before a consumer can file a lemon law lawsuit. This was a significant procedural change, and understanding how mediation works, what to expect, and how it affects your case is important for any consumer pursuing a lemon law claim today.
Mediation is a structured negotiation process facilitated by a neutral third party — the mediator — whose job is to help both sides reach a voluntary agreement. Unlike arbitration, the mediator does not make a binding decision. Unlike a trial, there is no judge or jury. The mediator’s role is to facilitate communication, help each side understand the other’s position, and guide the parties toward a resolution they can both accept.
In the AB 1755 lemon law context, mandatory mediation occurs after the consumer sends a formal demand and the manufacturer either requests mediation or the demand deadline passes without a satisfactory offer. The mediation is conducted by a qualified neutral mediator agreed upon by both parties or appointed under the AB 1755 framework.
A typical lemon law mediation session proceeds as follows:
Most lemon law mediations are conducted in a single day, though complex cases may require multiple sessions. Your attorney handles all substantive communications with the mediator — you do not have to speak directly to the manufacturer’s representatives.
The mediation itself is not binding — neither side is required to accept any offer during mediation. However, if mediation results in a settlement agreement and both parties sign a written agreement, that settlement is binding and enforceable. If mediation ends without agreement (an “impasse”), the consumer is free to file a lawsuit. Statements made during mediation are generally confidential and cannot be used as evidence in subsequent litigation.
AB 1755 requires good-faith participation in mediation. A manufacturer that appears at mediation but refuses to make any reasonable offer, or sends a representative without authority to settle, may be found to have violated the good-faith requirement. Bad-faith mediation can itself be grounds for additional sanctions or penalties, and it significantly strengthens the willfulness argument for a civil penalty claim if the case proceeds to litigation.
Your attorney will prepare a comprehensive mediation brief documenting your repair history, statutory buyback calculation, incidental damages, potential civil penalty exposure, and any supporting evidence (TSBs, NHTSA complaints, expert analysis). The goal is to make clear to the mediator — and through the mediator to the manufacturer — that your claim is strong, well-documented, and likely to succeed at trial. This presentation is often what drives manufacturers to make their best settlement offers at mediation.