An act to amend Sections 871.20 and 871.24 of, and to add Sections 871.29 and 871.30 to, the Code of Civil Procedure, relating to civil actions, and declaring the urgency thereof, to take effect immediately.
SB 26 revises California’s new-vehicle restitution/replacement procedures under the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act and related civil action rules. The bill delays the operative date of certain procedures from April 1, 2025 to July 1, 2025, and makes those procedures apply only to manufacturers that affirmatively elect to be governed by them through the Department of Consumer Affairs’ Arbitration Certification Program. For manufacturers that opt in, the election generally lasts for five calendar years and cannot be revoked during that period; the department must publish a list of participating manufacturers each year. The bill also creates a special one-time election window for vehicles sold in 2025 and earlier, including pending actions filed between January 1, 2025 and the bill’s effective date.
The bill also changes the rules for consumers who demand repurchase or replacement and then sell the vehicle. Under SB 26, a consumer may still pursue remedies, including civil penalties, if the manufacturer does not timely offer restitution or replacement, but the consumer must give written notice to the prospective buyer or recipient before selling the vehicle if they want to preserve the ability to seek civil penalties. The bill keeps the existing notice framework requiring the consumer to identify the VIN, repair history, and demand repurchase or replacement, and it adds a good-faith requirement and arbitration for prelitigation disputes over attorneys’ fees and costs.
SB 26 affects provisions in the Code of Civil Procedure governing civil actions tied to express-warranty claims for motor vehicles, and it interacts with Civil Code remedies under the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act and Tanner Consumer Protection Act. In practical terms, it changes when and how lemon-law style claims can proceed, which manufacturers are covered, and what consumers must do before seeking civil penalties or selling a disputed vehicle. It also requires manufacturers to tell consumers at the time of sale which procedure governs the vehicle.
The general sentiment reflected in the voting history appears strongly supportive, with the bill passing committees and floor votes by wide margins and no recorded opposition in several stages. Its urgency clause suggests lawmakers viewed immediate enactment as necessary to give manufacturers time to make elections before the earlier April 1, 2025 operative date of related provisions. The legislative intent section also signals that the Legislature expects to review the effects of these changes beginning in 2029.
The main point of contention is the balance between consumer protections and manufacturer flexibility. Supporters appear to have favored clarifying and delaying the new procedures so manufacturers could opt in or out in an orderly way, while preserving a path for consumers to seek remedies. Potential concerns center on the bill’s retroactive reach to 2025 and prior-year vehicles, the opt-in structure for manufacturers, and the added notice burden on consumers who sell a vehicle after making a repurchase or replacement demand.
SB 26 amends Code of Civil Procedure sections 871.20 and 871.24 and adds new sections 871.29 and 871.30. It shifts the operative date of certain motor-vehicle restitution/replacement procedures to July 1, 2025, creates a manufacturer election system administered by the Arbitration Certification Program within the Department of Consumer Affairs, and requires public posting of participating manufacturers. It also adds a disclosure requirement for consumers who sell a vehicle after making a repurchase/replacement demand and want to preserve civil-penalty claims, and it applies to actions involving vehicles sold in 2025 and earlier unless a manufacturer elects coverage.
The bill appears to have broad legislative support and little visible opposition in the recorded votes, passing committee and floor stages overwhelmingly. The urgency clause and immediate chaptering indicate lawmakers considered the measure time-sensitive and important to implement quickly. Overall, the sentiment in the available record is pragmatic and procedural rather than ideological, focused on aligning the new rules with manufacturer election timing and consumer notice requirements.
The central contention is between consumer advocates and manufacturers over how lemon-law style claims should be handled. The bill gives manufacturers a choice to opt into the new procedures and extends the timeline for those procedures, which may be seen as reducing uncertainty for manufacturers but also as limiting automatic application of consumer-favorable rules. Another likely point of dispute is the added requirement that consumers notify a prospective buyer before selling a vehicle if they want to keep civil-penalty remedies, which could be viewed as protecting downstream buyers but also as adding complexity and risk for consumers pursuing warranty claims. The retroactive application to 2025 and earlier vehicles, including pending cases, is another potentially sensitive feature.