Lemon Law Firm on Common Manufacturer Defenses

When your vehicle keeps acting up, it’s natural to feel frustrated—and even more so when the manufacturer pushes back. At ZapLemon, we regularly see a handful of common arguments automakers use in California lemon law cases. Understanding these defenses can help you recognize what’s happening and prepare your information so you can make informed next steps.

Common Manufacturer Defenses in CA Lemon Claims

One frequent defense is “no substantial impairment.” The manufacturer may argue that the issues you’re reporting don’t seriously affect the vehicle’s use, value, or safety. For example, a transmission that shudders might be labeled a “characteristic of the model,” a braking noise might be called “normal,” or an infotainment system that freezes may be downplayed as a minor annoyance. The core of this defense is the claim that the defect doesn’t rise to the level required under California’s lemon law.

Another common position is “we couldn’t verify the concern.” You’ll often see this written as “could not duplicate customer concern” on repair orders. If a dealer can’t recreate the stalling, warning lights, electrical drain, or rough shifting during a short test drive, the manufacturer may argue there’s no defect. Related arguments include saying the issue was fixed by a software update, that the vehicle now operates within specifications, or that the number of repair attempts wasn’t “reasonable” under the law.

Manufacturers also invoke warranty and owner-related defenses. These include claiming the problem is outside the warranty period, caused by lack of maintenance, misuse, or aftermarket modifications (such as tunes, lifts, or non-OEM electronics). They may argue the vehicle wasn’t available for repair, that you refused further diagnostics, or that it was used primarily for business or commercial purposes. Finally, even when liability is discussed, manufacturers may raise “mileage offset” deductions, contest rental or towing reimbursements, or insist the “days out of service” don’t meet California’s benchmarks.

What These Arguments Mean and How to Respond

When a manufacturer says a defect doesn’t “substantially impair” use, value, or safety, they’re testing whether your problem is serious enough under California’s Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act. In practical terms, your real-world experience matters: frequent no-starts, loss of power, repeated warning lights, or safety system faults often impact use and safety; chronic squeaks or rattles may affect value if they persist despite proper repair attempts. Document how the issue affects daily driving—missed work, safety concerns on the freeway, or repeated dealer visits.

If the dealer writes “could not duplicate,” it doesn’t mean your concern isn’t real; it means it didn’t happen during their short window of testing. To help, note exact conditions that trigger the problem: speed, temperature, road grade, battery state, fuel level, or when using adaptive cruise or lane assist. Provide photos or videos when safe to capture, and request that those details be added to the repair order. If the issue is intermittent, keep a log showing dates, mileage, and symptoms so there’s a clear pattern over time.

For warranty and owner-related defenses, proactive records are key. Keep all repair orders and invoices, even if “no fault found” appears. Follow the maintenance schedule in your owner’s manual and save receipts. If you’ve made modifications, bring that up early—some upgrades are unrelated to the defect and shouldn’t be blamed for it. Track days your car is at the dealership, any rental costs, and out-of-pocket expenses. If a recall or technical service bulletin applies, note when the fix was performed and whether the problem returned. If you’re unsure how California’s lemon law timelines and “reasonable number of attempts” concepts may apply to your situation, consider contacting a lemon law attorney for a consultation to discuss your options.