California Codes
Cal. Civil Code § 1751 (2026)
✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
CA-LEGleginfo.legislature.ca.gov
JustiaCode on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
Any waiver by a consumer of the provisions of this title is contrary to public policy and shall be unenforceable and void.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 50
cases (4 in the last 5 years), 2001–2025 · leading case: Doe 1 v. Aol LLC, 552 F.3d 1077 (9th Cir. 2009).
Doe 1 v. Aol LLC, 552 F.3d 1077 (9th Cir. 2009). “" Cal. Civ.Code § 1751. The state Court of Appeal held the forum selection clause, together with the choice of law provision, effect a waiver of statutory remedies provided by the CLRA in violation of the anti-waiver provision, as well as California's "strong public policy" to…”
Sanchez v. Valencia Holding Co., 353 P.3d 741 (Cal. 2015). “(See Civ. Code, §§ 1751, 1781.) Because the arbitration clause provided that ―[i]f a waiver of class action rights is deemed or found to be unenforceable for any reason in a case in which class action allegations have been made, the remainder of this Arbitration Clause shall be…”
Gentry v. Superior Court, 165 P.3d 556 (Cal. 2007). “) On the other hand, as the majority is well aware, the Legislature knows how to provide for a right to class action relief that cannot be waived.”
Sakkab v. Luxottica Retail North Am., Inc., 803 F.3d 425 (9th Cir. 2015). “2003) (holding that California’s Consumer Legal Remedies Act, Cal. Civ. Code § 1751 , is “not a law of ‘general applicability’” within the ambit of § 2’s saving clause because it applies only to noncommercial consumer contracts); Bradley v.”
Ting v. AT & T, 182 F. Supp. 2d 902 (N.D. Cal. 2002). “” Cal. Civ.Code § 1751. 14 88. The CSA’s ban on class actions and its imposition of a two year limitations period on the filing of claims are the most apparent efforts to effect a waiver of the class members’ statutory rights under the CLRA.”
Yei Sun v. Advanced China Healthcare, 901 F.3d 1081 (9th Cir. 2018). “§ 44 - 2000; Cal. Civ. Code § 1751 ; Cal. Corp. Code § 25701 ; Haw.”
Gutierrez v. Carmax Auto Superstores Cal., 228 Cal. Rptr. 3d 699 (Cal. Ct. App. 5th 2018). “In addition, the limiting language in CarMax's purchase agreement and warranty document does not preclude Gutierrez's CLRA cause of action.”
Lunada Biomedical v. Nunez, 230 Cal. App. 4th 459 (Cal. Ct. App. 2014). “) Civil Code section 1751 of the CLRA provides, “Any waiver by a consumer of the provisions of this title is contrary to public policy and shall be unenforceable and void.”
Goglin v. BMW of North Am., LLC, 4 Cal. App. 5th 462 (Cal. Ct. App. 2016). “) Thus, the requirement for Goglin to agree to a confidentiality provision was unlawful as to her Song-Beverly Act claims. (McKenzie v. Ford Motor Co.”
Directv, Inc. v. Imburgia, 136 S. Ct. 463 (2015). “3d 813 , 815-816 (2006) (holding a class-action waiver similar to the one at issue here unenforceable pursuant to Discover Bank ); see also Consumers Legal Remedies Act, Cal. Civ.Code Ann. §§ 1751, 1781(a) (West 2009) (invalidating class-action waivers for claims brought under…”
Gutierrez v. Autowest, Inc., 7 Cal. Rptr. 3d 267 (Cal. Ct. App. 2004). “2d 67 ]; Civ. Code, § 1751.) 15 The VLA was enacted for a public purpose, curtailing fraud by improving the disclosure and lease terms in the leasing of motor vehicles to consumers.”
Am. Online, Inc. v. Superior Court, 108 Cal. Rptr. 2d 699 (Cal. Ct. App. 2001). “Therefore, by parity of reasoning, enforcement of AOL’s forum selection clause, which is also accompanied by a choice of law provision favoring Virginia, would necessitate a waiver of the statutory remedies of the CLRA, in violation of that law’s antiwaiver provision (Civ. Code,…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.