“Cannot duplicate” or “cannot replicate” (also written as “CND” or “CNR”) is a notation dealerships use when they attempt to diagnose a vehicle defect that you reported, but the problem does not manifest itself during the dealership’s diagnostic session. For example, you report that your vehicle stalls randomly while driving, but when the dealership test-drives it or connects diagnostic equipment, the stalling does not occur. The dealership records in the service order that they could not duplicate the problem. This is particularly common with intermittent defects—problems that do not occur every time or that occur under specific conditions that are difficult to reproduce in a controlled dealership environment. A vehicle might overheat only when driven in stop-and-go traffic on a hot day, or a warning light might illuminate intermittently without a clear pattern.
The fact that the dealership “cannot duplicate” a problem does not mean the defect does not exist. It simply means that the defect did not manifest during that particular diagnostic session. The problem may be genuinely intermittent, or it may occur under conditions the dealership did not recreate. You know the vehicle better than the dealership does; if you have experienced the problem multiple times, you know it is real. Under California Lemon Law, the dealership’s inability to duplicate the problem does not excuse them from their warranty obligations. The vehicle must still be repaired. Moreover, the dealership’s failure to find or fix an intermittent defect can actually strengthen your lemon law case, because it demonstrates that even after multiple attempts and diagnostic efforts, the manufacturer cannot bring the vehicle into conformity with the warranty.
Intermittent defects are inherently difficult to reproduce under controlled conditions. A vehicle may behave differently in the dealership’s service bay than it does in normal driving. Dealerships typically test-drive vehicles for 15 to 30 minutes, but your actual driving patterns may be different. You might drive in severe traffic conditions, at high speeds, in extreme heat or cold, or with a full load—conditions that trigger the defect—while the dealership’s test drive is a short loop around the block in normal conditions. Additionally, some defects manifest only after the vehicle has been running for an extended period, or only during the first cold start of the day, or only when certain electrical consumers are active simultaneously. A dealership diagnostic session cannot easily reproduce all possible operating conditions.
Furthermore, some defects are electrical or sensor-related and are notoriously difficult to diagnose. An intermittent electrical short, a faulty sensor that transmits inconsistent signals, or software glitches may cause symptoms that disappear when the vehicle is connected to a diagnostic computer or when it is driven by someone unfamiliar with the specific conditions that trigger the problem. The dealership’s service advisor may have never personally experienced the complaint you are describing. If you report that the vehicle hesitates during acceleration, the service advisor might perform a test acceleration that does not replicate your actual driving patterns. Some defects appear only under very specific circumstances, and the dealership would need exact knowledge of those circumstances to reproduce the problem. This is why “cannot duplicate” is so common with genuine defects—not because the defects are imaginary, but because the dealership’s testing is limited in scope and may not include the specific conditions under which the defect manifests.
Yes. A visit to the dealership where they attempt to diagnose a defect counts as a repair attempt under California Civil Code § 1793.22, even if the dealership cannot duplicate the problem and no physical repairs are actually performed. The key requirement is that the dealership attempts to address the defect by investigating it, running diagnostics, or taking other steps to identify and fix the problem. If the service order shows that the dealership spent technician time investigating your complaint and conducting a diagnostic, that counts as a repair attempt. The fact that the investigation was unsuccessful does not negate the fact that an attempt was made. Additionally, if the dealership does perform any work—even if that work does not ultimately fix the problem because they could not duplicate it—that clearly counts as a repair attempt.
This rule is favorable to consumers because it means multiple unsuccessful attempts to duplicate and fix an intermittent defect accumulate quickly toward the statutory thresholds. If your vehicle has a genuine intermittent defect, you may visit the dealership four times, and each time they cannot duplicate the problem. Four visits means four repair attempts, and if the defect is a non-safety issue, four repair attempts are sufficient to establish lemon status under § 1793.22(b)(2). The manufacturer’s failure to duplicate the problem, when repeated multiple times, is powerful evidence that the vehicle has a defect that cannot be reliably repaired. Courts recognize that a defect does not have to be reproducible on demand to be a genuine defect. The dealership’s repeated inability to duplicate an intermittent problem actually strengthens your case by demonstrating the difficulty the manufacturer has in addressing the issue.
Documenting intermittent problems is crucial for a successful lemon law claim, particularly when the dealership claims they cannot duplicate the defect. Keep a detailed log of every instance the problem occurs. Record the date, time of day, outside temperature, driving conditions, what you were doing when the problem occurred, how long it lasted, and any unusual circumstances. For example, if your vehicle stalls, note whether it was cold outside, whether you had the air conditioning on, whether you were idling or driving, and how long after you started the vehicle the stall occurred. If a warning light illuminates, record the exact time, whether you were accelerating, braking, turning, or driving straight, and what happened immediately before the light came on.
Bring this detailed log to every dealership visit and provide it to the service advisor. The log demonstrates that the problem is real and recurring, not a one-time fluke or your imagination. It also provides the dealership with specific information about when and how the problem occurs, which may help them diagnose it. If the dealership claims they cannot duplicate the problem without this information, you have shown them exactly when and how to try. Additionally, keep all service orders, even those that show “cannot duplicate.” These orders create a paper trail showing that you reported the problem multiple times and the dealership investigated it multiple times without success. Over time, a series of service orders all showing “cannot duplicate” for the same issue demonstrates that the manufacturer has had multiple opportunities to investigate the defect and has consistently been unable to fix it—strong evidence of lemon status.
Yes, video and photo evidence can be extremely helpful in documenting intermittent defects. If your vehicle makes a strange noise, a short video with audio demonstrating the noise is valuable evidence that the problem is real. If a warning light illuminates, photographs showing the light on your dashboard provide documentation. If your vehicle visibly hesitates or stumbles during acceleration, video of the tachometer or speedometer showing the hesitation can demonstrate the problem. Video evidence is particularly powerful because it removes any question about whether the defect exists. The dealership cannot claim the problem is imaginary if you have video showing it actually happening.
When recording video, capture the most complete and clear evidence possible. Record video while driving if it is safe to do so, or pull over safely to record and photograph warning lights or gauges. Include audio in your recordings to capture any strange noises. Include the vehicle’s odometer and date/time stamp if your phone or dashcam records these details. Provide copies of the video or photos to the dealership before your repair visit, or bring them on your phone to show the service advisor in person. Explain in your service request that you have documented evidence of the defect and provide it to support your complaint. If the dealership still claims they cannot duplicate the problem despite having seen your video evidence, their credibility is damaged. You can also use the video evidence in a lemon law claim to demonstrate to an arbitrator, mediator, or court that the defect is real and that the dealership’s “cannot duplicate” response was unconvincing.
A Technical Service Bulletin (TSB) is a notice issued by a manufacturer describing a known defect or problem affecting multiple vehicles of the same make and model, along with recommended diagnostic procedures and repair solutions. TSBs are the manufacturer’s own acknowledgment that a defect exists and how to fix it. If your vehicle has a defect that is covered by a TSB, the dealership and manufacturer already know about the problem. They cannot claim it does not exist or that they have never heard of it. TSBs typically address intermittent defects, difficult-to-diagnose electrical problems, software glitches, and other problems that may not be immediately obvious. The fact that a TSB exists for your vehicle’s defect is powerful evidence in a lemon law claim because it proves the defect is known and recurring in that model.
You can search for TSBs relevant to your vehicle by visiting the manufacturer’s website, contacting the dealership directly, or using online databases that compile TSBs. When you request repairs, ask the service advisor whether a TSB exists for the problem you are reporting. If the dealership says yes, ask them to perform the TSB repair procedures. If they say they are unaware of a TSB, you can inform them of it and ask them to look it up. The existence of a TSB demonstrates that the manufacturer has acknowledged the problem, which makes a “cannot duplicate” response much harder to defend. If the dealership cannot duplicate the problem despite following the manufacturer’s own TSB diagnostic procedures, that failure is significant evidence of the severity of the defect or the manufacturer’s inability to fix it. Additionally, if the dealership performs a TSB repair and the defect returns or continues, you have evidence that even the manufacturer’s recommended repair procedure did not work.
When the dealership repeatedly fails to find or duplicate a defect, despite multiple attempts and diagnostic efforts, this failure actually strengthens your lemon law case. Under California Lemon Law, a vehicle is presumed to be defective if the manufacturer cannot repair it after a reasonable number of attempts. A “reasonable number” includes unsuccessful attempts to identify and fix intermittent defects. If you make four service visits complaining of a hesitation problem, and the dealership’s service orders show that they investigated it all four times but never found the problem and never fixed it, you have four repair attempts with zero successful repairs. This is exactly the situation § 1793.22 is designed to address. The law recognizes that a vehicle with a defect the manufacturer cannot identify or fix is a lemon, even if that defect is intermittent or difficult to reproduce.
Moreover, the dealership’s repeated failure to locate the problem suggests that the defect is particularly difficult to diagnose or is embedded in the vehicle’s manufacturing. A defect that manifests randomly and that the manufacturer cannot pinpoint after multiple diagnostic attempts may actually be more serious than a defect the dealership immediately identifies and repairs. It demonstrates that the manufacturer’s quality control failed in a fundamental way—they cannot even determine what is wrong with the vehicle. This evidence is particularly persuasive in mediation, arbitration, or litigation. If you can show an arbitrator or judge that you reported a defect six times, that the dealership investigated it every time, and that they never successfully identified or fixed it, the conclusion that the vehicle is a lemon is nearly inescapable. The dealership’s “cannot duplicate” responses, viewed collectively, constitute powerful evidence that the vehicle is defective and that the manufacturer has failed to repair it within a reasonable number of attempts.