US Lemon Laws (2026): How to Qualify & Get a Refund
Independently fact-checked against primary sources (last audited August 17, 2026). · Reviewed by the RecordingLaw editorial team. · Law checked current as of August 17, 2026. · 10 primary sources cited on this page. How we verify our legal content
Every state and the District of Columbia has a lemon law protecting buyers of new vehicles with substantial defects the manufacturer cannot fix after a reasonable number of repair attempts, entitling buyers to a refund or replacement. The federal Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act (15 U.S.C. 2301-2312) adds a separate layer of protection on top of all state laws.
Lemon laws protect consumers who purchase vehicles with defects that the manufacturer cannot repair after a reasonable number of attempts. Every state has a lemon law covering new vehicles, though the specific protections, thresholds, and remedies vary significantly from state to state.
This guide explains how lemon laws work, what qualifies a vehicle as a lemon, how federal and state protections interact, and which states offer the strongest consumer protections.
How Lemon Laws Work
State lemon laws share a common framework. When a new vehicle has a defect that substantially impairs its use, value, or safety, and the manufacturer or its authorized dealer cannot fix the problem after a reasonable number of repair attempts, the manufacturer must provide a refund or replacement.
Common Elements Across States
Every state lemon law requires:
- The vehicle must have a defect that substantially impairs its use, value, or safety
- The defect must be covered under the manufacturer's warranty
- The manufacturer or dealer must be given a reasonable number of repair attempts
- The defect must not result from consumer abuse, neglect, or unauthorized modifications
Typical Presumption Thresholds
Most states create a "rebuttable presumption" that a vehicle is a lemon when certain conditions are met. The manufacturer can try to disprove this presumption, but the burden shifts to them.
| Condition | Most Common Threshold |
|---|---|
| Repair attempts for the same defect | 3 to 4 attempts |
| Repair attempts for safety defects (brakes, steering) | 1 to 2 attempts |
| Cumulative days out of service | 30 calendar days |
| Coverage period | 12 to 24 months or 12,000 to 24,000 miles from delivery |
Remedies: Refund or Replacement
Refund (buyback): The manufacturer repurchases the vehicle for the full purchase price, including taxes, registration fees, finance charges, and incidental costs like towing and rental cars. A "reasonable use" deduction is subtracted based on miles driven before the first repair attempt. A common formula (used in California and several other states, though denominators vary by state) is:
Mileage Offset = (Purchase Price x Miles at First Repair) / 120,000
Replacement: The manufacturer provides a comparable new vehicle with the same or similar features, plus all applicable warranties.
Federal Protection: The Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act
The Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act (15 U.S.C. 2301-2312) is the federal law governing consumer product warranties. It does not replace state lemon laws but provides an important additional layer of protection.
Key Provisions
- Applies to any consumer product sold with a written warranty, including both new and used vehicles
- Does not require manufacturers to provide a warranty, but regulates the warranty if one is given
- Requires warranty terms be written in "simple and readily understood language"
- Anti-tying provision: manufacturers cannot condition warranty coverage on using specific branded parts or services (Section 2302(c))
- Implied warranties cannot be disclaimed: a supplier that gives a written warranty, or that sells a service contract at the time of sale or within 90 days after it, may not disclaim or modify the implied warranty of merchantability, and may limit its duration only to the duration of the written warranty (15 U.S.C. 2308). A disclaimer made in violation of that section is ineffective for purposes of both the Act and state law
- Prevailing consumers can recover attorney fees and court costs
- Lets a consumer sue in any state court of competent jurisdiction, or in federal district court only if the amount in controversy is at least $50,000 exclusive of interest and costs (15 U.S.C. 2310(d)). A single-vehicle claim rarely clears that floor, so most Magnuson-Moss vehicle suits are filed in state court, and a class action under the Act also requires at least 100 named plaintiffs
When Federal Law Helps Most
The Magnuson-Moss Act is particularly valuable when:
- The vehicle is used and the state lemon law does not apply
- The vehicle is used for commercial purposes and excluded from state coverage
- The state lemon law filing deadline has passed but a breach-of-warranty claim is still timely. The Magnuson-Moss Act sets no limitations period of its own, so the deadline for a federal warranty suit is supplied by state law. Check your state's deadline for breach of warranty claims
- The state law does not provide for attorney fees
- The state does not cover leased vehicles
Consumers can pursue claims under both federal and state law simultaneously.
Informal Dispute Settlement (16 CFR Part 703)
If a manufacturer requires consumers to use an informal dispute settlement mechanism (arbitration) before going to court, the program must comply with FTC regulations under 16 CFR Part 703. These regulations require neutral funding, qualified decision-makers, fair procedures, recordkeeping, and annual audits.
Lemon Laws by State
Select your state for a detailed guide to lemon law qualifications, repair attempt thresholds, remedies, and how to file a claim.
Northeast states
The table below covers 3 states in the Northeast.
Midwest states
The table below covers 7 states in the Midwest.
| State | State |
|---|---|
| Illinois | Pennsylvania |
| Indiana | Rhode Island |
| Iowa | South Carolina |
| Kansas | South Dakota |
| Michigan | Washington |
| Minnesota | West Virginia |
| Missouri | Wyoming |
Southern states
The table below covers 9 states in the South.
| State | State |
|---|---|
| Alabama | Montana |
| Arkansas | New Hampshire |
| Delaware | North Carolina |
| Florida | North Dakota |
| Georgia | Ohio |
| Kentucky | Tennessee |
| Louisiana | Texas |
| Maryland | Vermont |
| Mississippi | Wisconsin |
Western states
The table below covers 6 states in the West.
| State | State |
|---|---|
| Alaska | Nebraska |
| Arizona | Nevada |
| California | New Jersey |
| Colorado | New Mexico |
| Hawaii | Oklahoma |
| Idaho | Oregon |
States with the Strongest Lemon Laws
The Center for Auto Safety's Lemon Law Library ranks all 50 states and the District of Columbia and assigns each a letter grade based on coverage, qualification standards, required notice, and remedies. The rankings below reflect that library as accessed in September 2026.
New Jersey ranks first of the 51 jurisdictions and is one of only two graded A. New Jersey requires only 3 repair attempts or 20 days out of service. The state covers both new and used vehicles (up to 7 model years old, under 100,000 miles). Title branding is required for buyback vehicles.
Washington ranks second and is the other state graded A. Washington provides broad coverage and strong enforcement mechanisms.
California has historically been among the strongest, with the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act providing comprehensive protections. However, significant changes in 2024-2025 have altered some aspects of the law (see Recent Changes below).
New York covers both new and used cars and operates a state-run arbitration program. New car protection lasts 2 years or 18,000 miles.
Massachusetts uses a lower out-of-service threshold of 15 business days (compared to 30 calendar days in most states). The state's used car lemon law covers vehicles under 125,000 miles.
States with the Weakest Lemon Laws
Illinois ranks last of the 51 jurisdictions and is graded F. Coverage is limited and enforcement mechanisms are weak.
Colorado ranks 50th and is graded F. It excludes many vehicle types and limits coverage to just 1 year from delivery.
Kentucky ranks 41st (grade D-) and restricts both the presumption period and refund/replacement period to the earlier of 12 months or 12,000 miles.
Nevada ranks 46th (grade D-) and does not cover leased vehicles, limiting protections for a significant portion of consumers.
Used Car Lemon Laws
Most state lemon laws apply only to new vehicles. However, about 7 states have enacted separate used car lemon laws providing full refund-or-replacement warranty protections for used vehicle buyers, and two more states require a shorter dealer implied warranty.
| State | Maximum Mileage | Minimum Price | Warranty Period |
|---|---|---|---|
| Connecticut | No specific limit | $3,000+ | 30 days/1,500 mi ($3K-$5K); 60 days/3,000 mi ($5K+) |
| Hawaii | Under 75,000 miles | $1,500+ | 30-90 days depending on mileage |
| Massachusetts | Under 125,000 miles | $700+ | 30-90 days based on mileage |
| Minnesota | Under 75,000 miles | N/A | 60 days/2,500 mi (under 36K); 30 days/1,000 mi (36K-75K) |
| New Jersey | Under 100,000 miles | $3,000+ | 3 attempts or 20 days triggers remedies |
| New York | Under 100,000 miles | $1,500+ | 90 days/4,000 mi to 30 days/1,000 mi (tiered by mileage) |
| Rhode Island | Under 100,000 miles | N/A | 60 days/3,000 mi (under 36K); 30 days/1,000 mi (36K-100K) |
Arizona and New Mexico also protect used-vehicle buyers, though with narrower terms than the seven states above. Both require dealers to honor an implied warranty of merchantability for 15 calendar days or 500 miles after delivery, whichever comes first, with the buyer's repair cost capped at $25 for each of the first two repairs and a refund limited to the purchase price if the vehicle is not fixed (A.R.S. § 44-1267; N.M. Stat. Ann. § 57-16A-3.1).
Used car buyers in other states may still have protections under:
- Remaining manufacturer warranty (if still active)
- Federal Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act (for vehicles sold with a written warranty)
- Implied warranty of merchantability (vehicles must be reasonably fit for their ordinary purpose). These two protections are linked: if the dealer gave any written warranty, or sold a service contract within 90 days of the sale, 15 U.S.C. 2308 bars the dealer from disclaiming that implied warranty, so an "as is" sticker does not control
- State deceptive trade practices acts (if the dealer misrepresented the vehicle's condition)
Recent Changes (2024-2026)
California: Major Lemon Law Reforms
AB 1755 (signed September 29, 2024) introduced significant changes to California's Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act:
- Claims must be filed within 1 year of warranty expiration, with an absolute 6-year cap from delivery
- Starting April 1, 2025, consumers must send written notice to the manufacturer at least 30 days before filing a lawsuit seeking civil penalties
- Manufacturers must respond within 30 days and complete the buyback or replacement within 60 days, or face $50-per-day penalties
SB 26 (signed April 2, 2025) streamlined the AB 1755 process by creating an opt-in framework where manufacturers make an irrevocable 5-year election to operate under new streamlined procedures. Manufacturers that do not opt in remain subject to the pre-AB 1755 rules.
California Supreme Court ruling in Rodriguez v. FCA US, LLC (October 31, 2024) held that a used vehicle with an unexpired manufacturer's new car warranty does not qualify as a "new motor vehicle" under the Song-Beverly Act unless the warranty was issued with the sale itself. This means used car buyers in California generally cannot access the state lemon law refund-or-replace remedy, even if the vehicle is still within its original warranty period.
Electric Vehicle Considerations
States are adapting lemon laws to address EV-specific issues including battery degradation, charging system failures, and software defects. Minimum battery warranties come from emissions rules rather than from the Magnuson-Moss Act. Under EPA's Clean Air Act emission defect warranty, the battery serving as the energy storage system in an electric or plug-in hybrid vehicle is a specified major emission control component carrying a warranty of 8 years or 80,000 miles, whichever comes first (40 CFR 85.2103(d)(1)(v)). That coverage is mandatory beginning with the 2027 model year for light-duty vehicles and trucks at or below 6,000 pounds GVWR, and optional before then.
California requires more. For 2026 and later model year battery electric and plug-in hybrid vehicles, the manufacturer must warrant that the battery will not deteriorate below 70 percent state of health for 8 years or 100,000 miles, whichever comes first, rising to 75 percent for 2031 and later model years (13 CCR 1962.8(c)(3)). California separately requires 2026 and later zero-emission vehicles to be designed to hold a set share of their certified range over a useful life of 10 years or 150,000 miles, but that is a design durability standard, not a warranty a buyer can claim under.
The legal question of whether over-the-air (OTA) software update issues constitute "defects" under lemon law or expected software behavior remains unsettled in most states.
Tips for Filing a Lemon Law Claim
-
Document everything from day one. Keep every repair order, invoice, receipt, and written communication. Each time you visit the dealer, get a copy of the repair invoice.
-
Report defects in writing. Written records create a paper trail. Send letters by certified mail with return receipt.
-
Be specific and consistent. Describe the exact symptoms every time you report the problem. Consistent documentation of the same recurring defect strengthens your case.
-
Let the dealer attempt repairs. You must give the manufacturer a "reasonable number" of attempts. Do not go to independent mechanics for warranty repairs.
-
Track repair attempts and days out of service. Note the date and mileage at every visit. Count cumulative days the vehicle was at the dealer for repairs.
-
Check if arbitration is required. Some states require use of a manufacturer's certified dispute resolution program before filing suit. Review your warranty and state law.
-
File complaints with your state AG and NHTSA. State consumer protection offices can investigate. NHTSA complaints help identify safety defect trends.
-
Understand the mileage offset. Any buyback will deduct for "reasonable use" based on miles driven before the first repair attempt, not at the time of buyback.
-
Consider the Magnuson-Moss Act. If your state law does not cover your situation, the federal law may provide a remedy for any vehicle sold with a written warranty.
-
Do not sign anything waiving your rights. Some states explicitly void consumer right waivers. No document from a dealer or manufacturer can take away your lemon law protections.
Lemon Law Buyback and Branded Titles
When a manufacturer repurchases a vehicle under a lemon law, most states require the title to be permanently branded with a designation such as "Lemon Law Buyback" or "Manufacturer Buyback." This branding serves as a warning to all future buyers.
Manufacturers can resell buyback vehicles, but they must disclose the lemon history in writing. The disclosure must include the VIN, the nature of each defect, and whether the title carries a branded designation.
Consumers considering a used vehicle should always check the vehicle history through NMVTIS, Carfax, or AutoCheck to identify any lemon law or salvage history.
Frequently Asked Questions
What qualifies a car as a lemon?
A vehicle qualifies as a lemon when it has a defect that substantially impairs its use, value, or safety, and the manufacturer or dealer cannot fix the defect after a reasonable number of repair attempts. Most states require 3 to 4 attempts for the same defect or 30 cumulative days out of service during the warranty period.
Does the lemon law apply to used cars?
Most state lemon laws cover only new vehicles. However, about 7 states have specific used car lemon laws with full refund-or-replacement rights: Connecticut, Hawaii, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Jersey, New York, and Rhode Island. Arizona and New Mexico also require dealers to honor a shorter implied warranty (15 days or 500 miles) on used vehicles. Used car buyers in other states may have federal protections under the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act if the vehicle was sold with a written warranty.
How many times does a car have to be repaired to be a lemon?
Most states require 3 to 4 repair attempts for the same substantial defect, or 1 to 2 attempts for safety-critical defects like brake or steering failures. Alternatively, if the vehicle has been out of service for 30 or more cumulative days during the warranty period, the lemon law presumption typically applies.
Do I need a lawyer for a lemon law claim?
You are not required to have an attorney, but legal representation significantly improves outcomes. Both federal and most state lemon laws allow prevailing consumers to recover attorney fees from the manufacturer, so many lemon law attorneys work on contingency with no upfront cost.
Can I get a refund or just a replacement?
Most state lemon laws offer both a refund and a replacement as remedies. In some states, the consumer chooses. In others (like Alabama), the manufacturer chooses. A refund includes the purchase price, taxes, fees, and incidental costs, minus a mileage offset for use before the first repair attempt.
Does the lemon law cover leased vehicles?
Most states cover leased vehicles under their lemon laws. Notable exceptions include Nevada, New Mexico, and Arizona. In states that cover leases, the lessee (the person leasing the vehicle) has the same lemon law rights as a buyer.
What is the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act?
The Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act is the federal law governing consumer product warranties (15 U.S.C. 2301-2312). It applies to any product sold with a written warranty, including vehicles. It does not replace state lemon laws but provides additional remedies, including attorney fee recovery, and can cover situations where state lemon laws do not apply.
Updates
Corrected the federal EV battery warranty figure (EPA sets 8 years/80,000 miles, not 8 years/100,000 miles) and the California figure, added the $50,000 federal-court threshold and the implied-warranty rule in 15 U.S.C. 2308 to the Magnuson-Moss section, and replaced unsourced state ranking scores with the Center for Auto Safety ranks and grades.
Corrected the used-car lemon law state count: Arizona and New Mexico also give used-vehicle buyers a shorter dealer implied-warranty protection, in addition to the seven states with full buyback-style used car lemon laws.
Independently fact-checked against the cited primary sources; governing law re-checked for recent changes
Reviewed and approved by an editor
State-by-state comparison
Each state guide below is paired with the governing statute our editors adjudicated for it, held in our own legal record and verified against the official source.
Each statute shown is the same adjudicated anchor its state guide renders, independently verified against primary sources. A dash means not yet adjudicated in our record — never that no law exists.
The Law Behind This Article
This article rests on the statutory provisions below, held in our own legal record and retrieved from the official source. Tap a section to read the operative text.
United States Code Title 15
§ 2310Remedies in consumer disputesIn forcecited in 12 of our articles
Congress hereby declares it to be its policy to encourage warrantors to establish procedures whereby consumer disputes are fairly and expeditiously settled through informal dispute settlement mechanisms. The Commission shall prescribe rules setting forth minimum requirements for any informal dispute settlement procedure which is incorporated into the terms of a written warranty to which any provision of this chapter applies. Such rules shall provide for participation in such procedure by independent or governmental entities. One or more warrantors may establish an informal dispute settlement procedure which meets the requirements of the Commission’s rules under paragraph (2).
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-09-17 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at uscode.house.gov
Cited in 1,305 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2026
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- In Re General Motors Corporation Engine Interchange Litigation (Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit 1979, 594 F.2d 1106)“…to the court's discretion not to award attorneys' fees). 15 U.S.C. § 2310 (d)(2). Thus, the dismissal of the sub…”
- John F. "Jack" Walsh v. Ford Motor Company (Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit 1986, 807 F.2d 1000)“…y rejected this contention, refusing to “read section 110 [ 15 U.S.C. § 2310 (1982) ] so broadly as to have it supe…”
- Terrance Golden v. Gorno Bros., Inc., D/B/A Gorno Ford (Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit 2005, 410 F.3d 879)“…y required under the statute's jurisdictional limitations, 15 U.S.C. § 2310 (d)(3)(B). 11…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: Generac SnapRS Settlement: Claim Window Closed, Hearing Oct 21, 2026, Whirlpool Freezer Drain Tube Settlement: Free Part to Dec 31, 2026, Alaska Lemon Law (2026): How to Qualify & Get a Refund
§ 2302Rules governing contents of warrantiesIn force
In order to improve the adequacy of information available to consumers, prevent deception, and improve competition in the marketing of consumer products, any warrantor warranting a consumer product to a consumer by means of a written warranty shall, to the extent required by rules of the Commission, fully and conspicuously disclose in simple and readily understood language the terms and conditions of such warranty. Such rules may require inclusion in the written warranty of any of the following items among others: The clear identification of the names and addresses of the warrantors. The identity of the party or parties to whom the warranty is extended. The products or parts covered. A statement of what the warrantor will do in the event of a defect, malfunction, or failure to conform with such written warranty—at whose expense—and for what period of time. A statement of what the consumer must do and expenses he must bear. Exceptions and exclusions from the terms of the warranty.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-28 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at uscode.house.gov
Cited in 187 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2026
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Thomas E. Walton Le'ellen Walton v. Rose Mobile Homes Llc, Southern Energy Homes, Inc. (Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit 2002, 298 F.3d 470)“…mprove competition in the marketing of consumer products." 15 U.S.C. § 2302 (a). In addition to establishing standa…”
- Tietsworth v. Sears (District Court, N.D. California 2010, 720 F. Supp. 2d 1123)“…exceptions or exclusions from the terms of the warranty.” 15 U.S.C. § 2302 (a)(1)-(13); 15 U.S.C. § 2302 (a)(6).…”
- Arlie Glen Skelton, Jr. v. General Motors Corporation (Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit 1981, 660 F.2d 311)“…stood language the terms and conditions of such warranty." 15 U.S.C. § 2302 (a) (1976). Pursuant to this provision…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
§ 2301DefinitionsIn forcecited in 41 of our articles
For the purposes of this chapter: The term “consumer product” means any tangible personal property which is distributed in commerce and which is normally used for personal, family, or household purposes (including any such property intended to be attached to or installed in any real property without regard to whether it is so attached or installed). The term “Commission” means the Federal Trade Commission. The term “consumer” means a buyer (other than for purposes of resale) of any consumer product, any person to whom such product is transferred during the duration of an implied or written warranty (or service contract) applicable to the product, and any other person who is entitled by the terms of such warranty (or service contract) or under applicable State law to enforce against the warrantor (or service contractor) the obligations of the warranty (or service contract). The term “supplier” means any person engaged in the business of making a consumer product directly or indirectly available to consumers. The term “warrantor” means any supplier or other person who gives or offers to give a written warranty or who is or may be obligated under an implied warranty.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-28 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at uscode.house.gov
Cited in 1,671 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2026
In the courts (editorial summary, independently checked):Walsh v. Ford Motor Company (1986) held that except where Magnuson-Moss expressly prescribes a rule, the Act applies state written and implied warranty law, citing Section 2301(7)'s definition of implied warranty as one arising under state law. Birdsong v. Apple (2009) dismissed Act claims once the state warranty claims failed.
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- John F. "Jack" Walsh v. Ford Motor Company (Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit 1986, 807 F.2d 1000)✓Ford owners sought nationwide classes over transmissions that slipped from park into reverse; reading Section 2301(7) and (6), the D.C. Circuit held Magnuson-Moss applies state warranty law except where the Act expressly prescribes a rule, and vacated class certification.
- Birdsong v. Apple, Inc. (Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit 2009, 590 F.3d 955)✓iPod buyers alleged the player risked hearing loss; because Section 2301(7) ties implied warranty to state law, the Ninth Circuit treated the Magnuson-Moss claim as standing or falling with the California warranty claims and affirmed dismissal once those failed.
- Robert E. Kelly Virginia L. Kelly v. Fleetwood Enterprises, Inc. (Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit 2004, 377 F.3d 1034)“…gnizable under the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act (the “Act”), 15 U.S.C. § 2301 et seq. This consumer dis…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: Alabama Lemon Law (2026): How to Qualify and Get a Refund, Arkansas Lemon Law (2026): How to Qualify & Get a Refund, California Lemon Law (2026): How to Qualify & Get a Refund
§ 2308Implied warrantiesIn force
No supplier may disclaim or modify (except as provided in subsection (b)) any implied warranty to a consumer with respect to such consumer product if (1) such supplier makes any written warranty to the consumer with respect to such consumer Product, or (2) at the time of sale, or within 90 days thereafter, such supplier enters into a service contract with the consumer which applies to such consumer product. For purposes of this chapter (other than section 2304(a)(2) of this title), implied warranties may be limited in duration to the duration of a written warranty of reasonable duration, if such limitation is conscionable and is set forth in clear and unmistakable language and prominently displayed on the face of the warranty. A disclaimer, modification, or limitation made in violation of this section shall be ineffective for purposes of this chapter and State law.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-28 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at uscode.house.gov
Cited in 183 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2026
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Global Quest, LLC v. Horizon Yachts, Inc. (Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit 2017, 849 F.3d 1022)“…ection 2308(a) of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act (“MMWA”), 15 U.S.C. § 2308(a), prohibits a seller from disclaimin…”
- In re Porsche Cars North America, Inc. (District Court, S.D. Ohio 2012, 880 F. Supp. 2d 801)“…g under State law (as modified by sections 108 and 104(a) [ 15 U.S.C. §§ 2308 and 2304(a) ]) in connection with the…”
- Arlie Glen Skelton, Jr. v. General Motors Corporation (Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit 1981, 660 F.2d 311)“…e "duration of a written warranty of reasonable duration." 15 U.S.C. § 2308 (1976). 5 14…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Arizona Revised Statutes, Title 44 (Trade and Commerce), Chapter 9 (TRADE PRACTICES GENERALLY), Article 5 (Motor Vehicle Warranties)
§ 44-1267Used motor vehicles; title; implied warranty of merchantability disclaimer; waiver; burden of proof; remediesIn forcecited in 2 of our articles
A. Before the seller attempts to sell a used motor vehicle the seller shall possess the title to the used motor vehicle and the title shall be in the seller's name. B. Except as provided in subsection I of this section and in addition to the requirements of section 28-4412, a used motor vehicle dealer shall not exclude, modify or disclaim the implied warranty of merchantability prescribed in section 47-2314 or limit the remedies for a breach of that warranty, except as otherwise provided in this section, before midnight of the fifteenth calendar day after delivery of a used motor vehicle or until a used motor vehicle is driven five hundred miles after delivery, whichever is earlier. In calculating time under this subsection, a day on which the warranty is breached is excluded and all subsequent days in which the motor vehicle fails to conform with the implied warranty of merchantability are also excluded. In calculating distance under this subsection, the miles driven to obtain or in connection with the repair, servicing or testing of the motor vehicle that fails to conform with the implied warranty of merchantability are excluded.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-08-04 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at azleg.gov
Cited in 5 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2023
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Johnson v. Earnhardt's Gilbert Dodge, Inc. (Court of Appeals of Arizona 2005, 210 Ariz. 375)“…t no further. ¶ 22 Earnhardt cites a single sentence from A.R.S. § 44-1267(C) to support its argument that state l…”
- Lemons v. Showcase Motors, Inc. (Court of Appeals of Arizona 2004, 207 Ariz. 537)“…teen-day and 500-mile limits. A.R.S. § 47-2316(0(1) (1997); A.R.S. § 44-1267(B)(2003). The Act, however, limits the…”
- Sean Bonnette v. Mg Financial Enterprises, LLC A & G Car Sales, LLC (Court of Appeals of Arizona 2023)“…implied warranty of merchantability in used-car sales. See A.R.S. § 44-1267. Magnuson-Moss authorizes courts to awa…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: Arizona Lemon Law (2026): How to Qualify & Get a Refund
Code of Federal Regulations Title 40
§ 85.2103Emission warranty.In force
(a) The manufacturer of each vehicle to which this subpart applies must provide a written commitment to meet warranty requirements as described in this section. (b) The warranty periods under this section apply based on the vehicle's age in years and on the vehicle's odometer reading. The warranty period expires based on the specified age or mileage, whichever comes first. The warranty period for a particular vehicle begins on the date the vehicle is delivered to its ultimate purchaser or, if the vehicle is first placed in service as a “demonstrator” or “company” car prior to delivery, on the date it is first placed in service. (c) Under the emission performance warranty, in the case of a vehicle failing to conform at any time during its useful life to the applicable emission standards or family emission limits as determined by an EPA-approved emission test, the manufacturer must remedy that nonconformity at no cost to the owner if such nonconformity results or will result in the vehicle owner having to bear any penalty or other sanction (including the denial of the right to use the vehicle) under local, State, or Federal law.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-28 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at ecfr.gov
Cited in 2 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 1983
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Automotive Parts Rebuilders Ass'n v. Environmental Protection Agency (Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit 1983, 720 F.2d 142)“…must warrant all components that affect vehicle emissions. 40 C.F.R. § 85.2103 (1982). Then, for the remaining useful…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Sources and References
- Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act - FTC(ftc.gov).gov
- FTC Businessperson's Guide to Federal Warranty Law(ftc.gov).gov
- 16 CFR Part 703 - Informal Dispute Settlement Procedures(ecfr.gov).gov
- NHTSA - Lemon Law Protection(nhtsa.gov).gov
- USAGov - Where to File a Car Complaint(usa.gov).gov
- 15 U.S.C. Chapter 50 - Consumer Product Warranties(law.cornell.edu)
- California DCA - New Lemon Law Procedures (AB 1755)(dca.ca.gov).gov
- Massachusetts Guide to Used Vehicle Warranty Law(mass.gov).gov
- New Jersey Used Car Lemon Law(njconsumeraffairs.gov).gov
- New York Used Car Lemon Law(ag.ny.gov).gov
- NHTSA - Report a Safety Problem(nhtsa.gov).gov
- Center for Auto Safety - State Lemon Law Rankings(autosafety.org)
- 15 U.S.C. 2310 - Remedies in consumer disputes (Magnuson-Moss)(uscode.house.gov)
- 15 U.S.C. 2308 - Implied warranties may not be disclaimed(uscode.house.gov)
- 40 CFR 85.2103 - EPA emission warranty (EV and plug-in hybrid battery, 8 years/80,000 miles)(ecfr.gov)
- California Air Resources Board, 13 CCR 1962.8 - ZEV and PHEV battery warranty requirements(ww2.arb.ca.gov)
- Center for Auto Safety - Lemon Law Library and state rankings(autosafety.org)