The short answer: there is no single magic number. California law presumes a reasonable number of repair attempts has been made if, within 18 months of delivery or 18,000 miles — whichever comes first — the same defect was repaired four or more times (or two or more times for a defect likely to cause death or serious bodily injury), or the vehicle was out of service for repairs for more than 30 cumulative calendar days. That 18-month/18,000-mile window is a presumption trigger, not a deadline to file.
There is no magic number
The most common question California drivers ask is “how many times does my car have to be in the shop before it’s a lemon?” The honest answer is that the law does not set one universal number. The standard is whether the manufacturer had a reasonable number of attempts to fix a substantial, warranty-covered defect. What counts as reasonable depends on the defect: a dangerous brake failure and a rattling trim piece are not judged the same way.
The Tanner presumption: the thresholds that help you
To give that vague-sounding standard some teeth, California’s Tanner Consumer Protection Act (Civil Code § 1793.22) creates a rebuttable presumption in the consumer’s favor. If, within 18 months of delivery or 18,000 miles — whichever occurs first — any one of the following happens, the law presumes the manufacturer had a reasonable number of attempts:
- Four or more repair attempts for the same nonconformity; or
- Two or more repair attempts for a nonconformity likely to cause death or serious bodily injury if the vehicle is driven; or
- More than 30 cumulative calendar days out of service for repair of one or more nonconformities.
Two details matter here. In the first two situations, the buyer must also have directly notified the manufacturer at least once of the need for repair — though the statute requires that notice only where the manufacturer clearly and conspicuously disclosed that duty in the warranty or owner’s manual. And “cumulative” means what it says in the third: the days do not have to be consecutive, they add up across visits.
This is the part the internet gets wrong
The 18-month / 18,000-mile figure is a presumption window, not a filing deadline. Meeting it makes your case easier to prove; missing it does not end your rights. Your actual deadline to file is a separate question — see our guide to the statute of limitations. Some sites, and even some older pages, mix these two up. They are not the same thing.
What if you are past 18 months or 18,000 miles?
You can still have a strong claim. The Tanner presumption is a shortcut, not the only route. Outside that window you are back to the underlying “reasonable number of attempts” standard — and four repair visits for the same unfixed defect, or a car that has spent weeks in the shop, can absolutely be reasonable grounds at 20 months or 25,000 miles. The presumption simply shifts who has to prove what.
What counts as a repair attempt
A repair attempt generally means you brought the vehicle to the manufacturer’s authorized dealer for the same problem and gave them the opportunity to fix it. A few practical points:
- Document every visit. Keep every repair order, even when the dealer writes “no problem found” — a documented visit still counts as an attempt.
- It has to be the same nonconformity. Four visits for four unrelated issues is a different situation from four visits for the same recurring defect.
- The manufacturer needs notice and a chance to repair. That is why keeping records and following the dealer’s process matters.
One more step before you rely on the presumption
If the manufacturer runs a qualified third-party dispute resolution program and gave you timely written notice of it, the statute generally requires you to go through that process first before asserting the presumption. If no qualifying program exists, or you are dissatisfied with the outcome, or the manufacturer fails to honor a decision you accepted, you can then assert it. This is one of the reasons it is worth having someone look at your paperwork before you decide what to do next.
Does opting in change any of this?
No. Whether your manufacturer opted in to the new procedures under AB 1755 changes the process for resolving your claim, not the standard for whether your vehicle qualifies. The repair-attempt analysis under Song-Beverly and Tanner is the same either way.
How Lemon Law Assist helps
Counting repair attempts sounds simple, but whether they add up to a qualifying claim — and whether the presumption applies to your timeline — is a judgment call best made after someone looks at your records. Lemon Law Assist connects qualified California drivers with experienced California lemon law attorneys who review your repair history and take it from there. To qualify, you generally need to be a California consumer with a vehicle from an authorized dealership (not CarMax, Carvana, or AutoNation) and a qualifying defect and repair history. There is no cost to find out.
See if you qualify — start your free eligibility review »
Frequently asked questions
How many repair attempts make a car a lemon in California?
There is no single number. California presumes a reasonable number of attempts if, within 18 months or 18,000 miles, the same defect was repaired four or more times (or two or more times for a serious safety defect), or the vehicle was out of service for more than 30 cumulative calendar days.
Is the 18-month/18,000-mile window my deadline to file?
No. That is the window for the Tanner presumption, not a filing deadline. Your deadline to file is a separate question — see our statute of limitations guide.
What if my defect is a safety issue?
For a defect likely to cause death or serious bodily injury if the vehicle is driven, the presumption can apply after just two repair attempts within the 18-month/18,000-mile window, provided the manufacturer was directly notified at least once.
Do the days out of service have to be in a row?
No. The statute counts more than 30 cumulative calendar days — they add up across repair visits within the window.
Can I still qualify after 18,000 miles?
Yes. The presumption is a shortcut, not the only path. Outside the window you rely on the general “reasonable number of attempts” standard, which can still be met.
Sources
- California Civil Code § 1793.22 (Tanner Consumer Protection Act) — full text
- California Civil Code § 1793.2 (Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act)
- California Department of Consumer Affairs, Arbitration Certification Program — New Lemon Law Procedures
Attorney Advertising. This article is for general information only and is not legal advice. Reading it does not create an attorney-client relationship. Lemon Law Assist is a California-focused service that connects qualified consumers with experienced California lemon law attorneys; it does not itself litigate claims. Laws change and outcomes depend on the specific facts of each case. For advice about your situation, consult a licensed attorney.
