31 that she couldn’t support the bill, AB 1755, because it “was developed in secret, without public input, and without the opportunity for a full hearing.”
Despite concerns about the rushed process, the bill passed the Legislature with strong support from General Motors and opposition from Tesla, Toyota, and Mercedes-Benz.
The law, signed by Governor Newsom on Sept. 29, aims to expedite resolution of lemon law claims in California, reduce litigation, and streamline court processes. It requires consumers to notify manufacturers of defective vehicles and sets timelines for repurchasing or replacing them. The law also includes provisions for early mediation, sanctions for violating discovery rules, and uniform legal releases for lemon law claims.
Industry concerns led Newsom to urge legislators to consider changes to the law, including allowing automakers to choose between the new procedures and the old lemon law processes. He also recommended additional solutions to address issues with selling vehicles with pending lemon law claims and to update laws to address advances in automotive technology, such as electric vehicles.
Overall, the new law represents a significant shift in California’s lemon law procedures, with potential implications for consumers, manufacturers, and the civil justice system as a whole.
After the bill was unexpectedly introduced, not a single person representing California residents was aware of its existence. The bill was a result of a compromise between attorneys representing consumers with lemon vehicles and certain automakers, particularly the Consumer Attorneys of California and General Motors. The RV Industry Association, a national trade group representing over 500 manufacturers and suppliers, supported the bill, stating that it would benefit consumers and the RV industry. On the other hand, several auto manufacturers and consumer groups, including Honda, BMW, Hyundai, Daimler, Tesla, Toyota, Rivian, Mazda, Mercedes-Benz, and Subaru, opposed the bill. They argued that the bill would worsen the challenges faced by consumers, courts, and manufacturers instead of solving them. The group claimed that the bill would burden the judiciary, consumers, and manufacturers, while benefiting plaintiffs’ attorneys. Overall, the bill received mixed reactions from different stakeholders involved.
Source link
