Dealer vs. Manufacturer Liability in California Lemon Law Claims

California Lemon Law liability falls on the manufacturer — not the selling dealer — for breach of the manufacturer’s express written warranty. The Song-Beverly Act § 1793.2 obligates the manufacturer to repair, repurchase, or replace. A dealer may still be liable separately for misrepresentation, fraud, or breach of an independent dealer warranty, and in some cases the dealer is liable as the manufacturer’s agent. Most California lemon law cases name the manufacturer as the sole defendant; secondary claims against the dealer are added when the dealer’s own conduct supports them.

 

 

Why the Manufacturer (Not the Dealer)

The Song-Beverly Act distinguishes between the manufacturer (who issues the express warranty) and the retailer (who sells the vehicle). The express warranty travels with the vehicle from the manufacturer to whichever consumer holds it. Repair-attempts at any authorized dealer count toward the lemon presumption against the manufacturer, regardless of where the vehicle was originally sold.

The dealer is the authorized service facility — performing repairs on the manufacturer’s behalf — but is not the warrantor. A consumer cannot demand a Song-Beverly buyback from the dealer; the demand goes to the manufacturer.

 

 

When Dealers Are Liable Separately

  • Misrepresentation or fraud. Selling a damaged vehicle as “new,” concealing prior accident damage, or misrepresenting the warranty.
  • Independent dealer warranty. A dealer-issued written warranty on a used vehicle (e.g., 30-day / 1,000-mile dealer warranty) is the dealer’s own obligation.
  • Consumers Legal Remedies Act (CLRA). Deceptive practices in advertising or sale.
  • Unfair Competition Law (UCL). Business and Professions Code § 17200 claims.
  • As manufacturer’s agent. In limited circumstances, the dealer’s actions can bind the manufacturer.

 

 

Strategic Note: When to Sue Both

Some cases benefit from joining both manufacturer and dealer as defendants — for example, when the dealer concealed prior repair history or sold a manufacturer “buyback” vehicle without proper disclosure under § 1793.23. Joining the dealer triggers additional discovery rights against dealer records and may add Consumer Legal Remedies Act remedies. A California lemon law attorney evaluates whether dealer joinder strengthens the case.

 

 

Free Case Review

McMillan Law Group will identify the correct defendants for your claim. No fee unless we win.

Start your free case review →

 

 

About the Author

Julian McMillan is the founder of McMillan Law Group and a California lemon law attorney with over 25 years of legal experience, having represented San Diego consumers since 2000. He has been named a Thomson Reuters Super Lawyer twelve consecutive years (2014–2025), recognized by the National Trial Lawyers as a Top 100 Civil Plaintiff Lawyer, and listed in San Diego Magazine’s Top Attorneys in San Diego (2016–2025) and America’s Most Honored Professionals (2018–2025).

Julian holds an L.L.M. from the University of San Diego School of Law, an L.L.M. from Nottingham Law School (England), an L.L.B. with Distinction from the University of Exeter (England), and a B.A. (Honors) from the University of Victoria (Canada). He is admitted to the California Bar, the U.S. District Courts for the Southern, Central, and Northern Districts of California, and the Supreme Court of England and Wales. Before founding McMillan Law Group he practiced at DLA Piper (San Diego) and Ashurst Morris Crisp (London).

McMillan Law Group · 4655 Cass St, San Diego, CA 92109 · +1 619-795-9430 · Statutory citations on this site link to leginfo.legislature.ca.gov.