California Codes

Cal. Civil Code § 1793.2 (2026)

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section CA-LEGleginfo.legislature.ca.gov JustiaCode on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

(a)Every manufacturer of consumer goods sold in this state and for which the manufacturer has made an express warranty shall:

(1)(A)Maintain in this state sufficient service and repair facilities reasonably close to all areas where its consumer goods are sold to carry out the terms of those warranties or designate and authorize in this state as service and repair facilities independent repair or service facilities reasonably close to all areas where its consumer goods are sold to carry out the terms of the warranties.

(B)As a means of complying with this paragraph, a manufacturer may enter into warranty service contracts with independent service and repair facilities. The warranty service contracts may provide for a fixed schedule of rates to be charged for warranty service or warranty repair work. However, the rates fixed by those contracts shall be in conformity with the requirements of subdivision (c) of Section 1793.3. The rates established pursuant to subdivision (c) of Section 1793.3, between the manufacturer and the independent service and repair facility, do not preclude a good faith discount that is reasonably related to reduced credit and general overhead cost factors arising from the manufacturer’s payment of warranty charges direct to the independent service and repair facility. The warranty service contracts authorized by this paragraph may not be executed to cover a period of time in excess of one year, and may be renewed only by a separate, new contract or letter of agreement between the manufacturer and the independent service and repair facility.

(2)In the event of a failure to comply with paragraph (1), be subject to Section 1793.5.

(3)Make available to authorized service and repair facilities sufficient service literature and replacement parts to effect repairs during the express warranty period.

(b)Where those service and repair facilities are maintained in this state and service or repair of the goods is necessary because they do not conform with the applicable express warranties, service and repair shall be commenced within a reasonable time by the manufacturer or its representative in this state. Unless the buyer agrees in writing to the contrary, the goods shall be serviced or repaired so as to conform to the applicable warranties within 30 days. Delay caused by conditions beyond the control of the manufacturer or its representatives shall serve to extend this 30-day requirement. Where delay arises, conforming goods shall be tendered as soon as possible following termination of the condition giving rise to the delay.

(c)The buyer shall deliver nonconforming goods to the manufacturer’s service and repair facility within this state, unless, due to reasons of size and weight, or method of attachment, or method of installation, or nature of the nonconformity, delivery cannot reasonably be accomplished. If the buyer cannot return the nonconforming goods for any of these reasons, the buyer shall notify the manufacturer or its nearest service and repair facility within the state. Written notice of nonconformity to the manufacturer or its service and repair facility shall constitute return of the goods for purposes of this section. Upon receipt of that notice of nonconformity, the manufacturer shall, at its option, service or repair the goods at the buyer’s residence, or pick up the goods for service and repair, or arrange for transporting the goods to its service and repair facility. All reasonable costs of transporting the goods when a buyer cannot return them for any of the above reasons shall be at the manufacturer’s expense. The reasonable costs of transporting nonconforming goods after delivery to the service and repair facility until return of the goods to the buyer shall be at the manufacturer’s expense.

(d)(1)Except as provided in paragraph (2), if the manufacturer or its representative in this state does not service or repair the goods to conform to the applicable express warranties after a reasonable number of attempts, the manufacturer shall either replace the goods or reimburse the buyer in an amount equal to the purchase price paid by the buyer, less that amount directly attributable to use by the buyer prior to the discovery of the nonconformity. However, if the manufacturer or its representative in this state does not service or repair a travel trailer or a portion of a motor home designed, used, or maintained for human habitation, to conform to the applicable express warranties after a reasonable number of attempts, the buyer shall be free to elect reimbursement in lieu of replacement, and in no event shall the buyer be required by the manufacturer to accept a replacement travel trailer or motor home.

(2)If the manufacturer or its representative in this state is unable to service or repair a new motor vehicle, as that term is defined in paragraph (2) of subdivision (e) of Section 1793.22, to conform to the applicable express warranties after a reasonable number of attempts, the manufacturer shall either promptly replace the new motor vehicle in accordance with subparagraph (A) or promptly make restitution to the buyer in accordance with subparagraph (B). However, the buyer shall be free to elect restitution in lieu of replacement, and in no event shall the buyer be required by the manufacturer to accept a replacement vehicle.

(A)In the case of replacement, the manufacturer shall replace the buyer’s vehicle with a new motor vehicle substantially identical to the vehicle replaced. The replacement vehicle shall be accompanied by all express and implied warranties that normally accompany new motor vehicles of that specific kind. The manufacturer also shall pay for, or to, the buyer the amount of any sales or use tax, license fees, registration fees, and other official fees which the buyer is obligated to pay in connection with the replacement, plus any incidental damages to which the buyer is entitled under Section 1794, including, but not limited to, reasonable repair, towing, and rental car costs actually incurred by the buyer.

(B)In the case of restitution, the manufacturer shall make restitution in an amount equal to the actual price paid or payable by the buyer, including any charges for transportation and manufacturer-installed options, but excluding nonmanufacturer items installed by a dealer or the buyer, and including any collateral charges such as sales or use tax, license fees, registration fees, and other official fees, plus any incidental damages to which the buyer is entitled under Section 1794, including, but not limited to, reasonable repair, towing, and rental car costs actually incurred by the buyer.

(C)When the manufacturer replaces the new motor vehicle pursuant to subparagraph (A), the buyer shall only be liable to pay the manufacturer an amount directly attributable to use by the buyer of the replaced vehicle prior to the time the buyer first delivered the vehicle to the manufacturer or distributor, or its authorized service and repair facility for correction of the problem that gave rise to the nonconformity. When restitution is made pursuant to subparagraph (B), the amount to be paid by the manufacturer to the buyer may be reduced by the manufacturer by that amount directly attributable to use by the buyer prior to the time the buyer first delivered the vehicle to the manufacturer or distributor, or its authorized service and repair facility for correction of the problem that gave rise to the nonconformity. The amount directly attributable to use by the buyer shall be determined by multiplying the actual price of the new motor vehicle paid or payable by the buyer, including any charges for transportation and manufacturer-installed options, by a fraction having as its denominator 120,000 and having as its numerator the number of miles traveled by the new motor vehicle prior to the time the buyer first delivered the vehicle to the manufacturer or distributor, or its authorized service and repair facility for correction of the problem that gave rise to the nonconformity. Nothing in this paragraph shall in any way limit the rights or remedies available to the buyer under any other law.

(D)Pursuant to Section 1795.4, a buyer of a new motor vehicle shall also include a lessee of a new motor vehicle.

(e)(1)If the goods cannot practicably be serviced or repaired by the manufacturer or its representative to conform to the applicable express warranties because of the method of installation or because the goods have become so affixed to real property as to become a part thereof, the manufacturer shall either replace and install the goods or reimburse the buyer in an amount equal to the purchase price paid by the buyer, including installation costs, less that amount directly attributable to use by the buyer prior to the discovery of the nonconformity.

(2)With respect to claims arising out of deficiencies in the construction of a new residential dwelling, paragraph (1) shall not apply to either of the following:

(A)A product that is not a manufactured product, as defined in subdivision (g) of Section 896.

(B)A claim against a person or entity that is not the manufacturer that originally made the express warranty for that manufactured product.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 469 cases (362 in the last 5 years), 1986–2026 · leading case: Brady v. Mercedes-Benz USA, Inc., 243 F. Supp. 2d 1004 (N.D. Cal. 2002).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Brady v. Mercedes-Benz USA, Inc., 243 F. Supp. 2d 1004 (N.D. Cal. 2002). · cites it 8× “Brady alleged that MBUSA: [1] failed to repair defects within reasonable number of attempts; [2] failed to commence repairs within reasonable time and failed to repair defects within 30 days; [3] violated Cal. Civ.Code §§ 1793.2(a) and (b) (failure to maintain sufficient service…”

Sabicer v. Ford Motor Co., 362 F. Supp. 3d 837 (C.D. Cal. 2019). · cites it 3× “) Plaintiffs assert causes of action against Ford for (1) violation of California Civil Code § 1793.2(d), (2) violation of California Civil Code § 1793.”

Krotin v. Porsche Cars North Am., Inc., 95 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 7333 (Cal. Ct. App. 1995). · cites it 5× “2 However, the Act, which specifically sets forth procedures when a manufacturer or its representative is unable to service or repair a new vehicle to conform to applicable warranties after a reasonable number of attempts (Civ. Code, § 1793.2, subd. (d)), is unlike the…”

Krieger v. Nick Alexander Imports, Inc., 91 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 7643 (Cal. Ct. App. 1991). · cites it 3× “The trial court granted respondent’s motion for summary judgment on causes of action for violation of the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act (Civ. Code, § 1793.2); misrepresentation; breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing; breach of express warranty and negligence.”

Mocek v. Alfa Leisure, Inc., 52 U.C.C. Rep. Serv. 2d (West) 414 (Cal. Ct. App. 2003). · cites it 2× “” Remedies for Breach of Express and Implied Warranties Are Not Identical Defendant argues that, despite the plain language of the quoted statutes, plaintiff “was not justified in rejecting the trailer and demanding a refund *407 without first affording [defendant the right to]…”

Park City Servs., Inc. v. Ford Motor Co., 2006 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 10043 (Cal. Ct. App. 2006). · cites it 4× “First, it argues that the Act requires the plaintiff to “deliver nonconforming goods to the manufacturer’s service and repair facility within this state” (Civ. Code, § 1793.2, subd. (c)), but Ferraro never brought the limousine to California for repairs.”

Stearns v. Select Comfort Retail Corp., 763 F. Supp. 2d 1128 (N.D. Cal. 2010). · cites it 2× “Plaintiffs attempt to state a claim under California Civil Code § 1793.2(a) in their opposition papers.”

Murillo v. Fleetwood Enter., Inc., 953 P.2d 858 (Cal. 1998). · cites it 2× “Code, § 1794, subd. (b), incorporating specific damages provisions of the Cal.”

Paduano v. Am. Honda Motor Co., Inc., 39 Envtl. L. Rep. (Envtl. Law Inst.) 20009 (Cal. Ct. App. 2009). · cites it 2× “Procedural background Paduano filed a complaint on August 15, 2005, in which he alleged two causes of action for violations of the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act (Song-Beverly) (Civ. Code, § 1793.2, subd. (d)), one cause of action for a violation of the federal Magnuson-Moss…”

Donlen v. Ford Motor Co., 217 Cal. App. 4th 138 (Cal. Ct. App. 2013). · cites it 2× “The pertinent provision of the Act, Civil Code section 1793.2, subdivision (d)(2), states: “If the manufacturer or its representative in this state is unable to service or repair a new motor vehicle .”

Goglin v. BMW of North Am., LLC, 4 Cal. App. 5th 462 (Cal. Ct. App. 2016). “to conform to the applicable express warranties after a reasonable number of attempts, the manufacturer shall either promptly replace the new motor vehicle in accordance with subparagraph (A) or promptly make restitution to the buyer in accordance with subparagraph (B).”

Hanna v. Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC, 248 Cal. Rptr. 3d 654 (Cal. Ct. App. 5th 2019). “If the manufacturer is unable to do so after a reasonable number of attempts, the purchaser may seek replacement of the vehicle or restitution in an amount equal to the purchase price less an amount directly attributable to use by the purchaser prior to the discovery of the…”

Show all 469 citing cases →

— Cal. Civil Code § 1793.2(2)(C) — 1 case

Baumanns v. FCA US, LLC (S.D. Cal. 2021).

— Cal. Civil Code § 1793.2(A)(3) — 3 cases

Nadia Sheibani v. Ford Motor Co. (C.D. Cal. 2019).

Eric E. Gofnung v. BMW of North Am., LLC (C.D. Cal. 2023).

Liliana Vallejo v. Gen. Motors LLC (C.D. Cal. 2020).

— Cal. Civil Code § 1793.2(B) — 3 cases

Fisher v. Ford Motor Co. (S.D. Cal. 2022).

Frengel v. McLaren Auto., Inc. (S.D. Cal. 2022).

— Cal. Civil Code § 1793.2(D) — 1 case

Jacqueline Phillips-Harris v. BMW of North Am., LLC (C.D. Cal. 2020).

— Cal. Civil Code § 1793.2(a) — 4 cases

Brady v. Mercedes-Benz USA, Inc., 243 F. Supp. 2d 1004 (N.D. Cal. 2002). “Brady alleged that MBUSA: [1] failed to repair defects within reasonable number of attempts; [2] failed to commence repairs within reasonable time and failed to repair defects within 30 days; [3] violated Cal. Civ.Code §§ 1793.2(a) and (b) (failure to maintain sufficient service…”

Stearns v. Select Comfort Retail Corp., 763 F. Supp. 2d 1128 (N.D. Cal. 2010). “Plaintiffs attempt to state a claim under California Civil Code § 1793.2(a) in their opposition papers.”

D.L. Edmonson Selective Serv. Inc. v. LCW Auto. Corp., 689 F. Supp. 2d 1226 (C.D. Cal. 2010).

Paplekaj v. FCA US, LLC (S.D. Cal. 2025).

— Cal. Civil Code § 1793.2(a)(1) — 1 case

Garlough v. FCA US LLC (E.D. Cal. 2021).

— Cal. Civil Code § 1793.2(a)(1)(A) — 1 case

Forty-Niner Sierra Resources, Inc. v. Subaru of Am., Inc., 416 F. Supp. 2d 861 (E.D. Cal. 2004).

— Cal. Civil Code § 1793.2(a)(1)(B) — 1 case

Forty-Niner Sierra Resources, Inc. v. Subaru of Am., Inc., 416 F. Supp. 2d 875 (E.D. Cal. 2005).

— Cal. Civil Code § 1793.2(a)(3) — 26 cases

Sabicer v. Ford Motor Co., 362 F. Supp. 3d 837 (C.D. Cal. 2019). “) Plaintiffs assert causes of action against Ford for (1) violation of California Civil Code § 1793.2(d), (2) violation of California Civil Code § 1793.”

Ladanowsky v. FCA US LLC (N.D. Cal. 2024).

Malka v. Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC (E.D. Cal. 2024).

Javier Lopez v. Kia Am., Inc. (C.D. Cal. 2023).

Davis v. Fca Us LLC (E.D. Cal. 2020).

— Cal. Civil Code § 1793.2(b) — 55 cases

Yousif v. McLaren Auto., Inc. (S.D. Cal. 2024).

Nilsen v. Tesla, Inc. (N.D. Cal. 2023).

Tiner v. Ford Motor Co. (E.D. Cal. 2020).

Nilsen v. Tesla, Inc. (N.D. Cal. 2023).

— Cal. Civil Code § 1793.2(c) — 1 case

Armando B. Estrada v. FC US LLC (C.D. Cal. 2021).

— Cal. Civil Code § 1793.2(d) — 40 cases

Ortega v. Toyota Motor Sales, USA, Inc., 572 F. Supp. 2d 1218 (S.D. Cal. 2008).

D.L. Edmonson Selective Serv. Inc. v. LCW Auto. Corp., 689 F. Supp. 2d 1226 (C.D. Cal. 2010).

Eric E. Gofnung v. BMW of North Am., LLC (C.D. Cal. 2023).

Yousif v. McLaren Auto., Inc. (S.D. Cal. 2024).

— Cal. Civil Code § 1793.2(d)(1) — 8 cases

Stearns v. Select Comfort Retail Corp., 763 F. Supp. 2d 1128 (N.D. Cal. 2010). “Plaintiffs attempt to state a claim under California Civil Code § 1793.2(a) in their opposition papers.”

Kowalsky v. Hewlett-Packard Co., 771 F. Supp. 2d 1138 (N.D. Cal. 2010).

Nuguid v. Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC (S.D. Cal. 2021).

Dong v. BMW of North Am., LLC (S.D. Cal. 2021).

Potts v. Ford Motor Co. (S.D. Cal. 2021).

— Cal. Civil Code § 1793.2(d)(2) — 27 cases

Keegan v. Am. Honda Motor Co., 838 F. Supp. 2d 929 (C.D. Cal. 2012).

Galicia v. Country Coach, Inc., 324 F. App'x 687 (9th Cir. 2009).

D.L. Edmonson Selective Serv. Inc. v. LCW Auto. Corp., 689 F. Supp. 2d 1226 (C.D. Cal. 2010).

Silva (E.D. Cal. 2025).

— Cal. Civil Code § 1793.2(d)(2)(A) — 1 case

Gusse v. Damon Corp., 470 F. Supp. 2d 1110 (C.D. Cal. 2007).

— Cal. Civil Code § 1793.2(d)(2)(B) — 37 cases

Kirzhner v. Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC, 226 Cal. Rptr. 3d 296 (Cal. Ct. App. 5th 2017).

Milagros Garcia v. Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC (C.D. Cal. 2023).

Saavedra v. Ford Motor Co. (S.D. Cal. 2021).

Zavala v. Hyundai Motor Am. (Cal. Ct. App. 2024).

— Cal. Civil Code § 1793.2(d)(2)(C) — 18 cases

Martha Herrera-Martinez v. Kia Motors Am., Inc. (C.D. Cal. 2022).

Hanna v. Mercedes-Benz USA (Cal. Ct. App. 2019).

Elizabeth Cabrera v. FCA US LLC (C.D. Cal. 2022).

Marcia Davis v. FCA US LLC (C.D. Cal. 2022).

— Cal. Civil Code § 1793.2(d)(2)(c) — 1 case

Russell Mullin v. FCA US LLC (C.D. Cal. 2020).

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.