California experienced a significant decline in lemon law filings during the first half of 2026 following a record surge in previous years, with new legislative procedures playing a role in the shift. Data analyzed by the defense firm Bowman & Brooke LLP showed a 31.3% drop in filings through June compared to the same period in 2025, totaling 13,295 cases. If current trends continue, the state is projected to have about 26,500 filings for the full year—down from 32,480 in 2025 and 30,142 in 2024. This follows a rapid rise from 9,219 filings in 2020, reflecting growing consumer activity in vehicle warranty disputes.

These figures coincide with changes brought by Assembly Bill 1755, which took effect in early 2025. The legislation modified the procedural framework under California’s Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act by shortening filing deadlines—generally requiring claims within one year after a warranty expires and no later than six years from vehicle delivery—and introducing mandatory pre-litigation notice, mediation, and limited early discovery measures aimed at expediting dispute resolution.

While some attorneys attribute the filing decrease to these regulatory reforms facilitating earlier settlements, others caution that a broader set of factors is at play. Among the state’s largest plaintiff firms, Strategic Legal Practices notably filed 6,433 cases in 2025 but only 108 in the first half of 2026. This steep reduction heavily influenced the aggregate drop, according to Bowman & Brooke partner Richard L. Stuhlbarg. He argued that absent this firm's change in activity, annual filings would likely remain near 32,000, complicating claims that AB 1755 alone caused the decline.

Manufacturers’ defense counsel also observed that many cases are resolving before formal litigation. The law’s pre-suit notice requirement enables manufacturers to address claims earlier, leading to more pre-litigation settlements. Plaintiffs’ attorney Joseph A. Kaufman noted that manufacturers are increasingly accepting requests to repurchase vehicles prior to filing suit, partly due to provisions allowing attorney fee disputes to be handled through neutral binding arbitration. Although early resolutions benefit consumers by speeding outcomes, they reduce attorneys’ revenue per matter owing to less extensive litigation.

However, not all plaintiff firms have reduced filings; some maintained consistent volumes into 2026, illustrating a varied landscape within the plaintiffs’ bar. Sabrina C. Narain, co-founder of Narain Maclear LLP, emphasized that the overall decline is concentrated among a few high-volume firms rather than reflecting an industry-wide drop. She also expressed uncertainty about whether compressed discovery deadlines under AB 1755 will streamline all cases or merely delay full discovery phases for those that do not settle early.

Attorneys also debate the causes of the prior surge in lemon law litigation. Kaufman cited factors such as increasingly complex vehicle technology, parts shortages, and heightened consumer awareness of warranty rights. In contrast, defense representatives largely attributed the growth to aggressive filing practices by plaintiff firms and the financial incentives linked to statutory attorney fees.

Looking ahead, opinions differ regarding the lasting impact of AB 1755. Kaufman anticipates a gradual decline in filings as manufacturers and consumers adjust to new policies, while Narain considers it premature to determine whether fewer lawsuits represent a true reduction in disputes or an increase in out-of-court resolutions. Stuhlbarg suggested that additional reforms may be necessary to sustain long-term decreases in lemon law filings.