admin – California Lemon Law blog

Buying a new or certified pre-owned vehicle should come with confidence, not constant trips to the repair shop. When a vehicle suffers from repeated, unfixable defects—commonly known as a “lemon”, California offers some of the strongest consumer protection laws in the nation under the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act.

Under California law, if a manufacturer cannot repair your vehicle after a reasonable number of attempts, they are required to buy it back or replace it, as well as cover your legal fees. However, winning a claim is not automatic. Drivers often make critical errors early on that give auto manufacturers grounds to deny liability. If you suspect your vehicle is a lemon, here are three mistakes that can derail your California Lemon Law claim and how to avoid them.

1. Not Insisting on Detailed Repair Invoices from an Authorized Dealer

California Lemon Law relies heavily on written evidence. To qualify, you must show that an authorized dealership was given a reasonable opportunity to fix the same safety, value, or use defect while under the manufacturer’s warranty.

The Mistake:

Relying on verbal agreements with service advisors, leaving without a final repair order, or taking the car to an independent local mechanic rather than an authorized franchise dealership.

Why It Harms Your Claim:

Inaccurate Records: If a service advisor writes “could not duplicate concern” and you leave without reviewing the ticket, the manufacturer will argue that the defect didn’t occur.
Unauthorized Mechanics: Repairs done by independent shops or DIY modifications can void portions of your warranty, allowing manufacturers to blame a third party for the vehicle’s issues.

What to Do Instead:

Always take your vehicle to an authorized manufacturer dealership for warranty repairs.
Describe symptoms clearly (e.g., “transmission stutters when accelerating from a stop”) and make sure the advisor writes down your exact words on the intake sheet.
Never leave the dealership without a signed, physical copy of the final repair invoice detailing the exact dates, mileage in/out, and work performed.

2. Waiting Too Long to Act or Exceeding the Statutory Presumption Window

California law includes a powerful legal tool called the Lemon Law Presumption (CIV § 1793.22). This presumption automatically deems a vehicle a lemon if specific criteria are met within the first 18 months or 18,000 miles of delivery:

The dealer attempted to fix a defect that could cause death or serious bodily injury 2 or more times.
The dealer attempted to fix the same general defect 4 or more times.
The vehicle has been out of service for repairs for a cumulative total of more than 30 days.

The Mistake:

Delaying repairs because the problem seems minor, hoping it will resolve on its own, or waiting until the factory warranty is about to expire before seeking help.

Why It Harms Your Claim:

While you can still file a claim outside the 18-month/18,000-mile window (as long as the issues began under warranty), missing this window shifts the burden of proof back onto you. Furthermore, waiting allows manufacturers to argue that the issue is due to normal wear and tear rather than a factory defect.

What to Do Instead:

Report defects to the dealership immediately upon noticing them. Keep a log of every repair visit and track how many total days your car sits in the service bay.

3. Attempting to Fight the Manufacturer Alone or Accepting a Lowball Cash Offer

Automakers employ experienced legal teams whose primary goal is to minimize payouts or deny lemon law claims outright.

The Mistake:

Contacting the manufacturer directly to demand a buyback without legal representation, or accepting a quick “cash-and-keep” settlement offer directly from the car maker.

Why It Harms Your Claim:

Direct complaints to customer service hotlines often result in long delays, stalled negotiations, or low cash settlements that require you to sign away your legal rights and could leave you stuck with a defective car.

What to Do Instead:

Partner with an experienced California Lemon Law attorney. Under California law, the manufacturer is legally required to pay your legal fees and costs if your claim is successful. This means you do not have to pay out-of-pocket for quality legal representation.

Get a Free California Lemon Law Case Review

If your vehicle has spent weeks in the shop or has undergone multiple unsuccessful repairs, you don’t have to navigate the process alone.

At Edzant Price LLP, we have spent decades protecting California consumers and recovering millions from auto manufacturers. Contact our team today at 1-888-395-3666 or submit your vehicle details online for a free case review.

Ford Motor Company has announced a safety campaign addressing a software glitch in replacement Battery Energy Control Modules (BECMs) used in Mustang Mach-E vehicles with Lithium Iron Phosphate (LFP) batteries. The fix applies to both individual service components (NHTSA Equipment ID: 26E-063) and affected vehicles in the field (NHTSA Vehicle ID: 26V-582 / Ford Reference: 26S70).

The issue stems from replacement BECMs running uncalibrated software, which miscalculates long-term battery health and can result in sudden power loss or cell degradation. Here is a breakdown of what went wrong and the associated risks.

Understanding the Glitch

When a Mustang Mach-E receives a new BECM during service, the replacement module is designed to inherit the battery’s true historical State of Health (SOH). Instead, a software defect caused newly installed service parts (numbers PZ98-10B687-K* and PZ98-14C197-K*) to default to a 100% SOH reading.

This automatic reset creates a blind spot where onboard systems assume the battery is factory-fresh regardless of its actual age or condition.

The Safety Risks

An artificially inflated health metric introduces two primary hazards:

Unexpected Loss of Drive Power: Because onboard systems overestimate true energy reserves, the instrument cluster displays more remaining range than the battery possesses. Drivers face sudden power caps or complete stalls while driving, elevating collision risks.
Elevated Fire Risk: Incorrect health data throws off high-voltage charging limits. Over repeated DC Fast Charging (DCFC) sessions, this improper regulation promotes lithium plating inside the battery cells. Advanced lithium plating risks thermal venting, which can trigger a high-voltage battery fire.

Dashboard Warning Indicators

If the onboard computer detects severe power limits related to this mismatch, drivers will see specific dashboard alerts:

Wrench Icon (Service Vehicle Soon)
Turtle Icon (Reduced Power Mode)

Scope & Investigation Details

Ford’s Critical Concern Review Group launched a formal probe on July 7, 2026, after internal engineers flagged the default initialization flaw. Investigation teams confirmed the vulnerability spans spare BECM inventory used for warranty swaps and over-the-counter parts sales.

Impacted Units: A highly targeted group of approximately 83 vehicles.
Real-World Impact: Ford has recorded zero accidents, injuries, or fires associated with the flaw, along with zero field reports directly reporting SOH miscalculations.
Action Approved: Ford’s Field Review Committee authorized formal service actions on September 1, 2026.

The Service Fix

Technicians at Ford dealerships will reflash the BECM software to restore accurate SOH tracking and inheritance. Official owner notification letters go out beginning November 8, 2026.

Ford Motor Company recently identified a mechanical manufacturing defect affecting a small batch of 2026 Ford F-150 vehicles equipped with the max tow package. Documented under NHTSA Campaign Number 26V-576, this specific powertrain issue impacts an estimated 37 potential units.

While the number of affected trucks is limited, the potential safety risks make understanding the condition important for owners.

What Is the Defect?

The issue stems from an assembly oversight involving the rear axle tail bearings. Certain vehicles were built with an 8.8-inch axle tail bearing installed instead of the required 9.75-inch tail bearing.

Because the smaller 8.8-inch bearing lacks the adequate material hardness required for the heavier load conditions of the max tow package, it is not rated for long-term use in these specific trucks. Over an extended period in service, this component discrepancy can lead to bearing failure or full axle seizure.

Associated Safety Risks

If a rear axle tail bearing seizes, it can trigger severe operational issues while driving or parked:

Rear Wheel Lock-Up: A seized bearing can cause the rear wheels to lock suddenly, leading to a potential loss of vehicle control.
Driveshaft Separation & Power Loss: Bearing failure can lead to driveshaft separation, causing an immediate loss of motive power while driving.
Rollaway Hazard: If driveshaft separation occurs and the truck is parked without engaging the mechanical parking brake, unintended vehicle movement or rollaway can occur.

Each of these conditions significantly increases the risk of a crash or injury.

Early Warning Signs

As the incorrect bearing wears down over time, drivers may notice an increase in noise coming from the rear axle area. Sound levels and grinding noises will typically worsen as the condition progresses.

Timeline & Discovery

Ford’s internal quality controls caught the issue at the manufacturing level before widespread distribution:

May 26, 2026: Plant personnel at the Sterling Axle Plant noticed the incorrect 8.8-inch bearings being installed into max tow package axles during production.
May 28 – June 3, 2026: Quality teams tracked outbound shipments to the Dearborn Truck Plant and issued a “Stop Ship” order. Inspectors determined that only 38 total vehicles had left plant control, with 37 destined for the U.S. market.
June – September 2026: Ford’s Critical Concern Review Group and Field Review Committee evaluated the safety impact and approved a formal field service action.

As of the investigation’s conclusion, Ford confirmed zero reports of accidents or injuries related to this condition.

The Remedy

To resolve this defect, authorized Ford dealership service departments will replace the affected rear axle components with the properly rated 9.75-inch tail bearing assembly. Owner notification letters are expected to be mailed September 21, 2026. Ford’s number for this recall is 26S63 and the NHTSA campaign number is 26V-576.

If you are driving a recent-model Jeep Grand Cherokee, you will want to pay close attention to your mail this fall. Fiat Chrysler Automobiles (FCA US, LLC) has announced a safety defect impacting 328,381 vehicles. A potential design defect could cause a rear coil spring to detach while the vehicle is in motion.

This problem isn’t just a routine fix—it supersedes two previous recalls on the same issue. Even if you already had your Grand Cherokee serviced under a previous campaign, you will need to take your vehicle back to the dealer for an updated fix.

What Is the Issue?

The recall centers on the vehicle’s rear suspension system. According to safety documents, the rear coil springs may have been incorrectly installed during manufacturing. As a result, the springs can detach from the vehicle while driving.

Why Is This Dangerous?

A coil spring detaching while you are driving poses severe safety hazards:

Loss of Vehicle Control: Sudden failure or loss of a rear suspension component impairs handling and stability, increasing the risk of a crash.
Road Hazard: A detached heavy steel spring becoming a high-speed projectile on the highway poses an immediate danger to drivers following behind you.

Affected Vehicles

The recall affects specific model years of the Grand Cherokee lineup equipped with rear coil springs:

2021–2023 Jeep Grand Cherokee L
2022–2023 Jeep Grand Cherokee
Jeep Grand Cherokee 4xe (Plug-in Hybrid)

Note: Models equipped with the air suspension system use air bags rather than traditional coil springs and are not part of this specific structural spring defect.

Key Recall Identifiers

NHTSA Campaign Number: 26V-562 (replaces previous recall numbers 26V-051 and 23V-413)
FCA Recall Number: 89D
Total Affected Units: 328,381 vehicles

The Repair

To resolve the defect, authorized Jeep dealership service departments will replace the rear coil spring lower isolators to ensure the springs remain properly seated and securely positioned.

Important Note for Previously Repaired Vehicles

Because this recall replaces two earlier campaigns (23V-413 and 26V-051), prior repairs are no longer considered sufficient. If you took your Jeep in for a spring fix under either of those earlier notices, you will still need to have this new final remedy performed.

Timeline & Next Steps

Interim Notifications: FCA expects to begin mailing interim notification letters to registered owners starting September 29, 2026. These letters will outline the safety risk.
Remedy Notifications: A second letter will be mailed as soon as the final remedy parts are fully available at local dealerships to schedule your service appointment.

If you hear unusual clunking noises coming from the rear suspension or notice an uneven ride height in the rear of your Jeep, contact an authorized service center immediately to have the vehicle inspected. Be sure to check all invoices for accuracy upon completion and keep detailed records of all repairs made to your vehicle. Maintaining accurate documentation creates an official paper trail that proves repeated repair attempts, establishes vehicle downtime, and protects your rights under warranty and lemon laws should the issue persist.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has expanded its investigation into reports of brake system failures affecting numerous General Motors vehicles, along with certain Honda and Acura models built by GM. The investigation, now designated Engineering Analysis EA26006, focuses on reports of a sudden loss of brake assist that could increase stopping distances and the risk of a crash.

What Is the Issue?

The investigation began after owners of 2023 Cadillac Lyriq vehicles reported experiencing:

A hard brake pedal
“Brake System Failure” warning messages
Loss of brake assist during startup or while driving

According to GM, some failures may be caused by an internal fracture in the vehicle’s electronic eBoost brake system. The company says drivers should receive warning messages and that the vehicle may limit its speed to approximately 70 km/h (43 mph).

However, NHTSA has continued receiving reports suggesting some vehicles lose brake assist immediately during braking, rather than only after coming to a stop. If true, this could significantly increase stopping distance in an emergency.

Vehicles Included

The investigation now includes numerous models equipped with the same eBoost braking system, including:

Cadillac Lyriq, Celestiq, and Optiq
Buick Enclave and Envision
Chevrolet Colorado, Blazer EV, Equinox EV, and Traverse
GMC Canyon and Acadia
Honda Prologue
Acura ZDX

What Does This Mean?

An Engineering Analysis is one of the final stages before NHTSA decides whether a safety recall may be necessary. Investigators will continue reviewing complaints, engineering data, and failed components to determine whether the braking system presents a safety defect.

What Should Owners Do?

If your vehicle displays brake system warnings or you notice a hard brake pedal or reduced braking performance, have it inspected promptly and keep copies of all repair records. Repeated brake-related repairs may qualify for relief under your state’s lemon law if the manufacturer cannot successfully fix the problem. Depending on your state’s laws, you may be entitled to a vehicle buyback, replacement, or other compensation.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has opened Engineering Analysis EA26005 to investigate reports of continued engine failures in General Motors vehicles equipped with the L87 6.2L V8 engine, even after recall repairs were completed.

The investigation follows concerns that the remedy provided under Recall 25V-274 may not be preventing engine failures in all affected vehicles.

Vehicles Included in the Investigation

The investigation covers the following vehicles equipped with the L87 V8 engine:

2021–2026 Cadillac Escalade
2021–2026 Cadillac Escalade ESV
2021–2026 Chevrolet Silverado 1500
2021–2024 Chevrolet Suburban
2025–2026 Chevrolet Suburban 1500
2021–2026 Chevrolet Tahoe
2021–2026 GMC Sierra 1500
2021–2026 GMC Yukon
2021–2026 GMC Yukon XL

Why Is NHTSA Investigating?

GM’s Recall 25V-274 addressed certain L87 engines manufactured between March 1, 2021, and May 31, 2024. According to GM, the issue stemmed from a supplier manufacturing and quality problem.

Depending on inspection results, dealers performed one of two repairs:

An engine oil viscosity change, or
A complete engine replacement.

Despite these repairs, NHTSA says it continues to receive reports of engines failing after the recall work was completed.

What Has NHTSA Found?

To date, NHTSA has received 499 complaints involving post-recall engine failures, including:

473 vehicles that received the oil viscosity change.
26 vehicles that received a replacement engine.

In addition, investigators have received 191 reports of L87 engine failures in engines built after the production period covered by the original recall. GM has also reported receiving 6,953 complaints involving engine failures after recall repairs.

These reports have prompted NHTSA to broaden its investigation beyond the engines originally covered by the recall.

What Happens Next?

NHTSA has expanded the investigation to include newer L87 engines built outside the original recall period. During this Engineering Analysis, investigators will review additional failures and determine whether further action—including an expanded recall or additional remedies—may be necessary.

What Should Owners Do?

Owners of any of the vehicles listed above should pay close attention to symptoms that could indicate engine trouble, including:

Engine knocking or unusual noises
Loss of power
Engine stalling
Engine seizure
Check engine light accompanied by drivability issues

If your vehicle experiences any of these symptoms—even if it has already received recall repairs—it should be inspected as soon as possible. Keep copies of all repair orders, diagnostic reports, and communications with the dealership.

If repeated engine failures continue despite repair attempts, you may have rights under your state’s lemon law. Depending on the laws in your state, you could be entitled to a vehicle buyback, replacement, or other compensation if the manufacturer cannot permanently correct the defect.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has closed a petition requesting a formal safety investigation into reports of all-wheel drive (AWD) failures affecting certain Acura TLX and MDX vehicles. While the agency acknowledged that the reported mechanical failure is real, it concluded there is currently insufficient evidence to classify it as a safety-related defect requiring a formal investigation or recall.

Which Vehicles Are Affected?

The petition involved:

2021–2023 Acura TLX equipped with Super Handling All-Wheel Drive (SH-AWD)
2022–2023 Acura MDX equipped with SH-AWD

According to the petition, a mechanical failure inside the drivetrain can prevent power from being sent to the rear wheels, effectively turning the vehicle into front-wheel drive only.

What Is Failing?

The reported issue involves the splined connection between the front transaxle and the Power Take-Off Unit (PTU). Over time, these splines can shear or strip, permanently disconnecting the rear drivetrain.

When this happens:

The vehicle loses all rear-wheel drive capability.
Power is sent only to the front wheels.
The failure is permanent until repaired.

Interestingly, many owners reportedly did not realize anything had failed until driving on snow, ice, or another slippery surface where AWD traction would normally be expected.

Why Did Owners Want an Investigation?

The petition argued that losing AWD could reduce directional control and create a safety risk, particularly in poor weather conditions. The concern was heightened because Acura’s SH-AWD information display may continue to indicate that torque is being delivered to the rear wheels—even after the mechanical connection has completely failed. In other words, drivers may believe their AWD system is functioning normally when it is not.

What Did NHTSA Find?

NHTSA’s Office of Defects Investigation reviewed:

62 consumer complaints (Vehicle Owner Questionnaires)
Manufacturer field reports
Technical information about the SH-AWD system

The agency confirmed that the spline failure does occur and results in the permanent loss of torque to the rear axle.

However, investigators also found:

The vehicles continue to operate normally as front-wheel drive vehicles.
There is no loss of engine power.
Vehicle Stability Assist (VSA) and traction control remain fully operational.
The steering and braking systems continue to function normally.

Most importantly, NHTSA found no evidence that the failure causes drivers to lose control of the vehicle.

Why Was the Petition Denied?

NHTSA determined that Acura’s SH-AWD system is primarily a performance-enhancing feature rather than a critical stability system. Unlike some traditional AWD systems that are necessary for maintaining mobility after drivetrain failures, these Acura models are fundamentally designed as front-wheel drive vehicles. Because of that, the agency concluded that losing rear-wheel drive affects vehicle performance rather than basic vehicle safety.

The investigation also found:

No reported crashes linked to the failure.
No reports of loss of motive power.
No documented injuries resulting from the condition.

Without evidence that the defect creates an unreasonable safety risk, NHTSA declined to open a formal defect investigation.

Does This Mean There Isn’t a Problem?

Not necessarily. NHTSA specifically stated that closing the petition does not mean a safety defect does not exist. Instead, it means the agency currently lacks sufficient evidence that the issue presents an unreasonable safety risk under federal safety standards. The agency also noted that it may reopen the matter if future complaints, crashes, or additional evidence emerge.

What Should Acura Owners Do?

If you own one of the affected Acura models, it is worth paying attention to any changes in how your vehicle performs, particularly during wet, snowy, or icy driving conditions.

Potential warning signs may include:

Reduced traction on slippery roads
Difficulty accelerating in snow
Unexpected front-wheel spin
Service messages related to the AWD system

Because the SH-AWD display may continue to indicate normal operation even after the drivetrain has failed, routine inspections by a qualified technician may be the only way to identify the problem before winter driving exposes it.

The Bottom Line

The reported SH-AWD spline failure is a genuine mechanical issue that can disable the rear-wheel drive system in certain Acura TLX and MDX models. However, after reviewing dozens of owner complaints and technical evidence, NHTSA concluded there is not enough evidence to show that the condition creates an unreasonable safety risk warranting a formal defect investigation.

For now, no recall has been issued, but the issue remains on NHTSA’s radar. Owners experiencing AWD performance problems should have their vehicle inspected promptly and consider reporting the issue to NHTSA, as additional reports could influence future agency action.

A newly identified seat belt defect is affecting nearly 49,000 Dodge Hornet and Alfa Romeo Tonale vehicles, raising concerns about passenger safety in the rear seats.

According to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), the issue involves the rear outboard seat belt retractors. Under certain conditions, the seat belts can become twisted inside the retractor mechanism, preventing them from retracting smoothly or maintaining the proper tension against the occupant.

While this may seem like a minor inconvenience, it can significantly reduce the effectiveness of the restraint system during a collision.

Which Vehicles Are Affected?

The safety campaign applies to:

2023-2025 Dodge Hornet
2023-2026 Alfa Romeo Tonale

In total, approximately 48,777 vehicles are included.

What Is the Problem?

The defect affects the rear seat belt retractors located on the left and right outboard rear seating positions.

If a seat belt twists internally, it may no longer retract freely after use. More importantly, it may fail to maintain the proper tension needed to keep an occupant securely restrained during certain types of crashes.

Seat belts are designed to remove excess slack and hold passengers firmly in place. When that function is compromised, the risk of injury during an accident increases.

How Was the Issue Discovered?

The investigation began in April 2026, when FCA US alerted Stellantis Europe to a potential issue involving rear seat belt retractors in the Dodge Hornet and Alfa Romeo Tonale.

Engineers spent the following months reviewing warranty claims and investigating similar issues that had previously been identified in Europe. By July 1, 2026, the company concluded that the problem could occur under specific conditions because of a weakness in the seat belt retractor design.

As of July 30, 2026, the manufacturer had received:

484 warranty claims
0 reported accidents
0 reported injuries
0 field reports

Although no injuries have been linked to the defect, manufacturers often address safety issues before they result in serious crashes.

What Will Dealers Do?

To correct the problem, dealers will replace the affected rear seat belt retractors .

Owner notification letters are expected to begin mailing on September 24, 2026.

What Should Owners Do?

If you own a 2023-2025 Dodge Hornet or 2023-2026 Alfa Romeo Tonale, watch for your notification letter.

Campaign Information

NHTSA Campaign Number: 26V-510
Manufacturer Campaign Number: 84D
Manufacturer: Chrysler (FCA US, LLC)

If your vehicle is included, scheduling the repair promptly will help ensure your rear seat belts provide the protection they were designed to deliver.