SB 26 (April 2025) created the manufacturer opt-in framework for AB 1755 pre-suit and mediation procedures.
SB 26 is a California law that, when it was effective, addressed specific aspects of lemon law procedure and consumer warranty rights. Understanding SB 26 and how it interacts with the broader Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act helps consumers understand the current legal landscape — including how subsequent legislation like AB 1755 built on or modified SB 26’s provisions.
SB 26 was a California Senate bill that addressed several consumer warranty and lemon law issues. Like many pieces of consumer protection legislation in California, it was designed to close gaps that manufacturers and dealers were exploiting to avoid their obligations under Song-Beverly. The bill addressed issues including: disclosure requirements for lemon law buyback vehicles, the obligations of manufacturers when consumers exercise their repurchase rights, and certain procedural aspects of how warranty claims must be handled.
One of the most practically significant aspects of lemon law legislation in this area concerns “lemon law buyback” disclosure. Under California Vehicle Code § 11713.12, any vehicle that was repurchased by a manufacturer under any state’s lemon law must be disclosed as such before resale. The vehicle must bear a “Lemon Law Buyback” label, and the dealer must provide written notice to any prospective buyer. Failure to make this disclosure is a violation of the Vehicle Code and may support fraud claims.
If you purchased a used vehicle and later discovered it had previously been repurchased as a lemon — without disclosure — you may have claims for rescission of the sale, fraud damages, and statutory penalties. These claims are separate from the standard lemon law claim and have their own procedural requirements.
The 2024 enactment of AB 1755 significantly modified California lemon law procedure by introducing mandatory mediation. SB 26 and earlier legislation established the underlying substantive rights and disclosure obligations; AB 1755 changed the procedure for enforcing those rights. Both layers of law now operate together. A consumer pursuing a lemon law claim today must satisfy both the substantive requirements of Song-Beverly (as modified by the Tanner Act and other amendments) and the procedural requirements of AB 1755.
The interaction of multiple California laws — Song-Beverly, the Tanner Act, SB 26, AB 1755, and various Vehicle Code sections — means that California lemon law is a detailed, multi-layered legal framework. No single statute tells the complete story. This complexity is one of the reasons why lemon law expertise matters: a practitioner who is current on all applicable California law will identify arguments and claims that a generalist or self-represented consumer might miss entirely.
If you believe a prior statutory change specifically affects your situation — for example, if you purchased a vehicle that was previously a lemon law buyback without proper disclosure — discuss the specifics with a qualified lemon law attorney. The interplay between disclosure requirements, fraud claims, and Song-Beverly rights can significantly affect both the theory of your case and the damages available to you.