California’s consumer protection statutes, commonly referenced as the “lemon law,” provide remedies for buyers or lessees of new vehicles that prove to be defective after a reasonable number of repair attempts. The phrase incorporating “30 days” pertains specifically to a presumption under the law: If a vehicle is out of service for repairs for a cumulative total of more than 30 days since the vehicle was delivered to the consumer, a rebuttable presumption arises that the vehicle is indeed a “lemon.” This 30-day period need not be consecutive. An example is when a car spends 10 days in the shop, returns to the owner, and then spends another 20 days in the shop shortly after due to similar unresolved issues.
The significance of this 30-day timeframe lies in its impact on the burden of proof. While not an absolute guarantee of a successful claim, exceeding this threshold strengthens the consumer’s position. It signals to the manufacturer that the vehicles defects significantly impair its use, value, or safety. Historically, these protections aimed to level the playing field between consumers and large automobile manufacturers, ensuring recourse against persistently faulty vehicles. Demonstrating a high number of days out of service is crucial to support a case.
