California has one of the strongest lemon laws in the country, and one feature that makes it so is a special provision called a civil penalty. The civil penalty is an additional penalty, beyond actual damages, that can be imposed on manufacturers for failure to comply with the lemon law.

If you’ve been fighting a manufacturer over a defective vehicle, this provision may be more relevant to your situation than you realize. Here’s what you need to know, including how the 2025 amendments under AB 1755 changed the requirements to pursue it. 

Key Takeaways: 

• According to California Civil Code § 1794(c), if a manufacturer knowingly ignored the lemon law, a court can impose a civil penalty of up to twice the amount of the consumer’s actual damages, in addition to the usual refund or replacement.
• Willful doesn’t mean malicious; it means the manufacturer knew of its obligations under the law and intentionally chose not to fulfill them.
• Under the 2025 amendments to California’s lemon law, consumers must now send a written pre-suit notice to the manufacturer at least 30 days before filing a lawsuit in order to be eligible to pursue civil penalties.

What Is a Lemon Law Civil Penalty?

California’s Lemon Law includes a provision under Civil Code § 1794(c), called the civil penalty, that allows courts to award an additional penalty when a manufacturer’s failure to comply with the law was willful. That penalty can be up to two times the consumer’s actual damages.

For example, if you’re entitled to a $40,000 buyback and a court finds the manufacturer acted willfully, the civil penalty alone could add another $80,000 to your recovery. Your total would then be $120,000, not $40,000. 

The civil penalty is separate from your actual damages and separate from attorney’s fees, which manufacturers are required to pay when the consumer prevails. All three stack.

What Is the Purpose of the Civil Penalty?

The purpose of the civil penalty isn’t to punish the manufacturer, but to give manufacturers a financial reason to honor the lemon law voluntarily rather than forcing consumers to file lawsuits. 

Without the possibility of a civil penalty, the math would generally favor stonewalling. A manufacturer could deny a valid claim and let the consumer file suit, knowing that their worst-case scenario would be paying the refund they should have in the first place. However, in states with civil penalties, the manufacturer faces a much more unpleasant prospect if it loses at trial.  

What Changed Under AB 1755?

The 2025 amendments to California’s lemon law, enacted through Assembly Bill 1755, now mean before filing a lawsuit, you must now send a written notice to the manufacturer at least 30 days prior to filing suit if they opted in to the provision. That notice must include your name and contact information, the vehicle identification number (VIN), a summary of the repair history and vehicle defects, and a request for repurchase or replacement. 

If you file a lawsuit without sending the required notice and waiting the 30 day period, you may lose the right to pursue civil penalties even if the manufacturer’s conduct was otherwise willful. You also need to keep the vehicle for at least 30 days after sending the notice. If the manufacturer agrees to repurchase or replace it during that time, you must keep the vehicle until the process is complete.

What Does Willful Mean in a Lemon Law Case?

Under California law, a manufacturer’s violation is willful when it knew of its obligations under the Song-Beverly Act and intentionally declined to fulfill them. In practice, that means a manufacturer can be found to have acted willfully if it was aware a vehicle’s repair history met the lemon law threshold and still refused to offer the consumer a buyback or replacement. There’s no requirement of malice or any other kind of moral wrongdoing. What matters is whether they knew what the law required and chose not to follow it.

Here are several patterns that courts have found to support a willfulness finding: 

• Refusing to repurchase a vehicle that clearly met the lemon law presumption based on documented repair records.
• Denying a valid claim without conducting an investigation.
• Internal communications that acknowledge the defect, while public-facing responses denied any problem.
• A pattern of refusing similar claims involving the same defect across multiple consumers, which suggests corporate policy rather than an isolated mistake.
• Pressuring a consumer to accept a replacement when they repeatedly requested a repurchase.

How Do You Prove Willfulness?

Willfulness is typically established through a combination of the consumer’s repair history and the manufacturer’s own internal documents, which become available during the discovery process in litigation. Some of the most valuable evidence typically includes:

The Repair Record Itself

If your repair orders show the same defect reported over and over without resolution, and the manufacturer had access to that history, that can serve as the foundation of a willfulness argument. A manufacturer that reviews its own service records and still denies the vehicle in question has a defect will have a harder time claiming the decision was an honest mistake.

Technical Service Bulletins (TSBs)

TSBs are internal documents manufacturers issue to their dealership technicians to address known defects. If a TSB exists for the exact problem you’ve been reporting and the manufacturer still denies your claim, that’s clear evidence that they were aware of the issue.

Internal Warranty Databases and Claim Records

Manufacturers have internal databases that track warranty claims across their entire vehicle fleet. In litigation, these can reveal whether the manufacturer flagged the same issue across similar vehicles, or whether it denied prior buyback requests for the same defect as a matter of practice.

The Manufacturer’s Response to Your Claim

How quickly they responded, whether they made a meaningful investigation, and whether their offers reflected the actual value of the claim are all relevant pieces of information. A lowball offer made after an obvious pattern of failed repairs, followed by extended delay, tells its own story.

Why the Civil Penalty Drives Settlement

The civil penalty provision is one of the main reasons California lemon law cases tend to settle more favorably for consumers than cases in other states. Why? Once a claim goes into litigation and willfulness is part of the argument, the manufacturer’s potential exposure doubles. A case that might have settled for the vehicle’s buyback value now carries the possibility of a judgment two or three times that amount, plus attorney’s fees.

For manufacturers that handle hundreds or thousands of warranty claims at a time, that exposure adds up quickly and creates a pretty strong incentive to resolve claims reasonably rather than fight them.

How Is the Penalty Calculated?

The civil penalty is calculated as a multiplier on actual damages, and the court has discretion to award anywhere from zero to two times actual damages depending on the circumstances.

Actual damages in a lemon law buyback case typically include the full purchase price of the vehicle, including taxes, registration fees, and other charges paid at the time of purchase, along with any collateral costs like towing, rental cars, or repair expenses directly related to the defect. That said, the manufacturer is generally entitled to apply a mileage offset based on the miles driven before the first repair attempt, which will reduce the buyback amount somewhat.

What Factors Into The Decision?

Courts will likely consider how egregious the conduct was, whether the manufacturer had a pattern of similar violations, and how much the consumer suffered as a result when determining where within the 0 to 2x range to land.

Frequently Asked Questions

Does the Civil Penalty Cost Anything to Pursue?

No. Like all recovery in a successful California lemon law case, pursuing the civil penalty doesn’t require any out-of-pocket cost to you. Under Civil Code § 1794(d), manufacturers are required to pay the consumer’s reasonable attorney’s fees when the consumer prevails. At Norman Taylor & Associates, we take lemon law cases on this basis, which means the manufacturer pays our fees, not you.

Is the Civil Penalty Automatic?

No, the civil penalty isn’t awarded just because a vehicle qualifies as a lemon. As mentioned above, it requires establishing that the manufacturer’s failure to comply was willful, which means intentional rather than accidental.

Can the Civil Penalty Be Awarded in Arbitration?

The civil penalty under Civil Code § 1794(c) generally can’t be awarded in manufacturer-sponsored arbitration programs. Arbitration may produce a result faster, but it caps your potential recovery at the refund alone. In litigation, the civil penalty remains on the table, and that changes the settlement dynamic.

Our Attorneys Are Always In Your Corner! Schedule Your Free Consultation Today

If your vehicle has been back to the dealership multiple times for the same problem and you haven’t gotten any real resolution, your case may be worth more than a standard refund. Norman Taylor & Associates has been handling California lemon law cases for over 40 years, and we know how to evaluate whether willfulness is part of the picture.

There’s no cost to speak with us, and no obligation. If you have a case, the manufacturer pays our fees. Call 818-244-3905 or 888-817-8822, or contact us online to schedule your free consultation today.