Ford

A California buyer purchased a used 2018 Ford Mustang GT from an Orange County dealer in January 2025. Within three weeks, the owner was cited for a loud exhaust. About two months after the sale, the Mustang failed a California smog check as "tampered"; the inspector flagged an aftermarket air intake needing CARB Executive Order (EO) numbers. California prohibits selling used cars that do not comply with state emissions law, subject to limited exceptions. The owner sued the dealer, the lender, and the dealer's surety, and the case settled in October 2026 for $27,500.

Quick answer: An over-the-air (OTA) software update may count as a California lemon law repair attempt when a manufacturer uses it to address a warranty defect you reported. The key questions are whether you presented the problem, whether the update targeted it, and whether the problem continued. A routine update sent to every vehicle is not automatically a repair attempt. The distinction matters for Tesla, Rivian, Ford, GM, and other vehicles that receive remote fixes.

The California Lemon Law in 2026 follows two procedural tracks under AB 1755 and SB 26, both effective in 2025. For manufacturers that elected into Code of Civil Procedure (CCP) sections 871.20–871.30 for the vehicle’s sale year, special lawsuit deadlines, a pre-suit notice requirement for civil penalties, and 30/60-day response rules may apply. Other manufacturers remain under the traditional Song-Beverly procedures. The choice of track can affect when and how you pursue a buyback, replacement, or civil penalties—not whether a serious warranty defect deserves an early case review.

California’s Lemon Law is designed to level the playing field. In most qualifying cases, the manufacturer will be required to pay the owner’s reasonable attorney’s fees and costs - so you can pursue a buyback, replacement, or other resolution without treating legal help as another financial burden.

In many California Lemon Law matters, the record is not just about the defect - it’s also about the real-world costs the owner paid while the vehicle was repeatedly in the shop. When supported by documentation, certain out-of-pocket losses may be recoverable as part of a resolution under California law. These are often treated as “incidental” costs - the key is a clean paper trail that ties each expense to defect-related repair visits.

Cash-and-keep generally means the owner keeps the vehicle and resolves the dispute through monetary compensation under California law. This outcome is most often a negotiated settlement: the record supports a serious, recurring warranty defect pattern, but the owner prefers compensation over returning the vehicle - or wants a practical resolution that matches the defect history and their goals.

In some California Lemon Law cases, a replacement vehicle may be an available remedy when a warranty defect substantially affects a vehicle’s use, value, or safety and the problem continues after reasonable repair attempts or significant time out of service. The key is aligning the remedy with your goals and the record - because in many cases, California law allows consumers to pursue a repurchase (buyback) instead of being pushed into a replacement they don’t want one.

If you’re researching a California Lemon Law buyback (repurchase), you’ll often see the term mileage/use offset (sometimes called a use deduction). This is a common manufacturer talking point—and it can sound like it wipes out your recovery. In reality, the offset is typically a limited, formula-based deduction that depends on your records, especially the mileage at the time of the first repair attempt for the defect at issue.