Vehicle history guide · U.S. vehicles

Lemon Title & Buyback Guide

Q: Is a lemon buyback always a bad purchase?

It carries added risk and resale implications. The repaired defect, warranty, price, title disclosure and independent inspection all matter.

Q: What qualifies a car as a lemon?

State laws differ, but a lemon is generally a newer vehicle with a substantial warranty defect the manufacturer could not fix after a reasonable number of repair attempts or days out of service.

Q: How do I know if a car was a lemon law buyback?

Look for buyback or lemon disclosures in the title record and history report, and ask the seller in writing. Some states brand the title; manufacturer disclosure requirements also vary by state.

Q: Do dealers have to disclose a lemon buyback?

It depends on the state. Many states require written buyback disclosure at resale, but scope and wording differ. Verify the titling state’s rule and get every representation about the vehicle in writing.

Learn how manufacturer buybacks and lemon-law related brands can appear in covered title records.

SHORT ANSWER

A lemon check looks for manufacturer buyback or lemon-law title brands returned by covered sources. Definitions and disclosure requirements vary across states.

Published by VIN LookupReviewed August 27, 2026

PRIMARY REFERENCES

DOJ/BJA NMVTIS Vehicle History Guide FTC Used Car Buying Guide Editorial & citation policy

What this guide explains

Know exactly what you are looking for.

Not every buyback uses the same label, and laws differ by state. Review warranty and repair documentation with the title history.

Referenced evidence categoryLicensed U.S. title-history categoryEducational context only — no category lookup runs on this guide.

Was the vehicle repurchased by a manufacturer?

A manufacturer repurchase is established only by a covered record or disclosure. This educational page does not run a VIN lookup.

Is a lemon brand recorded?

Use the exact state title label and event date; lemon and manufacturer-buyback terminology varies by jurisdiction.

What documentation should the seller provide?

Request the buyback disclosure, repair orders, warranty terms and current physical title, then match every document to the VIN.

Manufacturer buyback signals

Treat a manufacturer buyback as established only when a returned record or disclosure identifies the repurchase.

Lemon-law title brands

Preserve the exact lemon or buyback title wording because state definitions and disclosure rules are not uniform.

State and event sequence

Follow the dates and states from repurchase through later title events so a newer label does not erase the earlier history.

Buyback review

The decisive facts are the original defect, the repair history and the remaining protection.

State lemon-law standards and title wording vary, so the brand alone cannot explain whether the underlying problem was permanently corrected.

Coverage rule

A returned record, no record, missing coverage and a source outage remain different outcomes.

01 · Disclosure

Obtain the buyback notice

Ask for the manufacturer disclosure, exact defect description, repurchase date and current title wording. Compare every document with the VIN.

02 · Repair history

Read every repair order

Track dates, mileage, repeated complaints, parts replaced and test results. Have an independent specialist evaluate the original system or symptom.

03 · Ownership cost

Confirm warranty and resale limits

Get remaining warranty terms in writing and consider insurance, financing, future disclosure obligations and the smaller resale market.

Keep this limitation visible.A manufacturer buyback can be repaired and resold legally, but the discount should reflect the documented defect, uncertainty and future resale impact.

How coverage states work

Every state, read from the statute

What each state's lemon law actually requires.

Read from each statute or state agency page, then read again by a second reviewer. These columns answer what a manufacturer buyback needs in each state — not whether a used car in front of you was one.

Do not compare these columns across states. A day count is calendar days in some states and business days in others, roughly three weeks apart, so a smaller number is not a stricter law. Almost every figure is a rebuttable presumption: meeting it shifts the argument, it does not settle it, and most states also require written notice and a final repair attempt before any remedy is owed.

“New only” does not mean a used buyer is excluded. Many states define the consumer to include a later owner during the original factory warranty, and the clock almost always runs from first delivery rather than from your purchase. 9 jurisdictions have their own used-vehicle statute: Arizona, Connecticut, Illinois, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York and Rhode Island. They are not equivalent to each other.

State lemon-law thresholds for a new vehicle, read from each statute and re-read by a second reviewer. Reviewed 2026-09-15. These columns cannot be compared across states: the day counts are business days in some states and calendar days in others, and almost every figure is a rebuttable presumption rather than an entitlement. A dash means no figure could be verified.

State	Statute	Repair attempts	Out of service	Protection period	Used vehicles
Alabama	Ala. Code section 8-20A-1 et seq. (presumption at section 8-20A-2(c))	3	30 calendar days	12 months / 12,000 miles	New only
Alaska	AS 45.45.300 - AS 45.45.360 (presumption at AS 45.45.320)	3	30 business days	12 months	New only
Arizona	Ariz. Rev. Stat. sections 44-1261 to 44-1266 (presumption at section 44-1264); used-vehicle warranty at section 44-1267	4	30 calendar days	24 months / 24,000 miles	Own used-car statute
Arkansas	Ark. Code Ann. section 4-90-401 et seq. (repair attempts at section 4-90-406(a); presumption at section 4-90-410)	3, or 1 for a serious safety defect	30 days, unit not stated	24 months / 24,000 miles	New only
California	Cal. Civ. Code section 1793.22 (Tanner Consumer Protection Act; branding at section 1793.23)	4, or 2 for a serious safety defect	30 calendar days	18 months / 18,000 miles	New only
Colorado	C.R.S. section 42-10-103 (title 42, article 10, as amended by SB24-192)	3, or 2 for a serious safety defect	24 business days	24 months / 24,000 miles	New only
Connecticut	Conn. Gen. Stat. section 42-179 (chapter 743b); used vehicles at chapter 743f, section 42-221 et seq.	4, or 2 for a serious safety defect	30 calendar days	24 months / 24,000 miles	Own used-car statute
Delaware	6 Del. C. section 5004 (title 6, chapter 50, Automobile Warranties)	4	30 calendar days	12 months	New only
District of Columbia	D.C. Code section 50-502 (Automobile Consumer Protection Act of 1984)	4, or 1 for a serious safety defect	30 days, unit not stated	24 months / 18,000 miles	New only
Florida	Fla. Stat. section 681.104 (Motor Vehicle Warranty Enforcement Act, chapter 681)	3	30 days, unit not stated	24 months	New only
Georgia	O.C.G.A. section 10-1-784 (Georgia Lemon Law, sections 10-1-780 to 10-1-798)	3, or 1 for a serious safety defect	30 calendar days	24 months / 24,000 miles	New only
Hawaii	Haw. Rev. Stat. section 481I-3 (chapter 481I, sections 481I-1 to 481I-4)	3, or 1 for a serious safety defect	30 business days	24 months / 24,000 miles	New only
Idaho	Idaho Code section 48-903 (title 48, chapter 9, sections 48-901 to 48-908)	4, or 1 for a serious safety defect	30 business days	24 months / 24,000 miles	New only
Illinois	815 ILCS 380/3 (New Vehicle Buyer Protection Act, 815 ILCS 380/1 to 380/8); used vehicles at 815 ILCS 505/2L	4	30 business days	12 months / 12,000 miles	Own used-car statute
Indiana	IC 24-5-13 (term of protection at IC 24-5-13-7; repair attempts at IC 24-5-13-15); buyback disclosure at IC 24-5-13.5 and IC 9-17-3-3.5	4	30 business days	18 months / 18,000 miles	New only
Iowa	Iowa Code ch. 322G (rights period at section 322G.2(8); presumption at section 322G.4(3))	3, or 1 for a serious safety defect	30 days, unit not stated	24 months / 24,000 miles	New only
Kansas	K.S.A. 50-645	4	30 calendar days	12 months	New only
Louisiana	La. R.S. 51:1941 through 51:1948 (presumption at 51:1943; mandatory remedy at 51:1944)	4	45 calendar days	12 months	New only
Maine	10 M.R.S. ch. 203-A, sections 1161 to 1169 (presumption at section 1163(3))	3, or 1 for a serious safety defect	15 business days	36 months / 18,000 miles	New only
Maryland	Md. Code, Commercial Law section 14-1502 (warranty period defined at section 14-1501(e)(1))	4, or 1 for a serious safety defect	30 days, unit not stated	24 months / 18,000 miles	New only
Massachusetts	M.G.L. c. 90, section 7N1/2 (New and Leased Car Lemon Law); used vehicles at M.G.L. c. 90, section 7N1/4	3	15 business days	12 months / 15,000 miles	Own used-car statute
Michigan	MCL 257.1403(5)(a) and (5)(b) (presumption); reporting deadline at MCL 257.1402 (Act 87 of 1986)	4	30 days, unit not stated	12 months	New only
Minnesota	Minn. Stat. section 325F.665 (presumption at subd. 3; resale at subd. 5); used vehicles at Minn. Stat. section 325F.662	4, or 1 for a serious safety defect	30 business days	24 months	Own used-car statute
Mississippi	Miss. Code Ann. section 63-17-159 (Motor Vehicle Warranty Enforcement Act, sections 63-17-151 to 63-17-165)	3	15 working days	12 months	New only
Missouri	Mo. Rev. Stat. sections 407.560 to 407.579 (presumption at section 407.571)	4	30 working days	12 months	New only
Montana	Mont. Code Ann. sections 61-4-501 through 61-4-533 (presumption at 61-4-504)	4	30 business days	24 months / 18,000 miles	New only
Nebraska	Neb. Rev. Stat. sections 60-2701 to 60-2709 (presumption at 60-2704)	4	40 days, unit not stated	12 months	New only
Nevada	Nev. Rev. Stat. sections 597.600 to 597.688 (presumption at NRS 597.630(2); branding at NRS 597.682)	4	30 calendar days	12 months	New only
New Hampshire	N.H. RSA chapter 357-D (presumption at RSA 357-D:3, VII; resale bar at RSA 357-D:12)	3	30 business days	—	New only
New Jersey	N.J.S.A. 56:12-29 et seq. (rules at N.J.A.C. 13:45A-26); Used Car Lemon Law at N.J.S.A. 56:8-67 et seq. (rules at N.J.A.C. 13:45A-26F)	3, or 2 for a serious safety defect	20 days, unit not stated	24 months / 24,000 miles	Own used-car statute
New Mexico	NMSA 1978, Sections 57-16A-1 to 57-16A-9 (Motor Vehicle Quality Assurance Act; presumption at Section 57-16A-3(C); used vehicles at Section 57-16A-3.1)	4	30 business days	12 months	Own used-car statute
New York	N.Y. Gen. Bus. Law section 198-a (New Car Lemon Law); Used Car Lemon Law at N.Y. Gen. Bus. Law section 198-b	4	30 calendar days	24 months / 18,000 miles	Own used-car statute
North Carolina	N.C. Gen. Stat. section 20-351 et seq. (New Motor Vehicles Warranties Act; presumption at section 20-351.5)	4	20 business days	24 months / 24,000 miles	New only
North Dakota	N.D.C.C. sections 51-07-16 through 51-07-22 (presumptions at section 51-07-19)	4	30 business days	12 months	New only
Ohio	Ohio Rev. Code sections 1345.71 to 1345.78 (presumption at section 1345.73; resale at section 1345.76)	3, or 1 for a serious safety defect	30 calendar days	12 months / 18,000 miles	New only
Oklahoma	Okla. Stat. tit. 15, section 901 (presumption at 15 O.S. section 901(D); branding at 15 O.S. section 901.1)	4	30 business days	12 months	New only
Oregon	ORS 646A.400 to 646A.418 (presumption at ORS 646A.406; branding at ORS 646A.405)	3, or 1 for a serious safety defect	30 calendar days	24 months / 24,000 miles	New only
Pennsylvania	Act of Mar. 28, 1984, P.L. 150, No. 28 (Automobile Lemon Law), 73 P.S. sections 1951-1963 (presumption at section 6; resale at section 10)	3	30 calendar days	12 months / 12,000 miles	New only
Rhode Island	R.I. Gen. Laws section 31-5.2-1 et seq. (presumption at 31-5.2-5; disclosure at 31-5.2-9); used vehicles at chapter 31-5.4	4	30 calendar days	12 months / 15,000 miles	Own used-car statute
South Carolina	S.C. Code Ann. sections 56-28-10 through 56-28-110 (Enforcement of Motor Vehicle Express Warranties; presumption at SECTION 56-28-50)	3	30 calendar days	12 months / 12,000 miles	New only
South Dakota	SDCL 32-6D-1 to 32-6D-11 (presumption at SDCL 32-6D-5; branding at SDCL 32-6D-9)	4	30 calendar days	12 months / 12,000 miles	New only
Tennessee	Tenn. Code Ann. sections 55-24-101 to 112	3	30 days, unit not stated	—	New only
Texas	Tex. Occ. Code sections 2301.601-2301.613 (chapter 2301, subchapter M, 'Warranties: Rights of Vehicle Owners'; presumption at section 2301.605)	4, or 2 for a serious safety defect	30 days, unit not stated	24 months / 24,000 miles	New only
Utah	Utah Code sections 13-20-1 to 13-20-8 (presumption at section 13-20-5); buyback disclosure at Utah Code section 41-3-408	4	30 business days	12 months	New only
Vermont	9 V.S.A. sections 4170-4181 (thresholds at 9 V.S.A. section 4172(g); resale at section 4181)	3	30 calendar days	—	New only
Virginia	Va. Code section 59.1-207.9 et seq. (Virginia Motor Vehicle Warranty Enforcement Act; thresholds at section 59.1-207.13)	3, or 1 for a serious safety defect	30 calendar days	18 months	New only
Washington	RCW 19.118.041 (chapter 19.118 RCW; eligibility period at RCW 19.118.021(6); branding at RCW 19.118.061)	4, or 2 for a serious safety defect	30 calendar days	24 months / 24,000 miles	New only
West Virginia	W. Va. Code section 46A-6A-1 et seq. (New Motor Vehicle Warranties; presumption at section 46A-6A-5)	3, or 1 for a serious safety defect	30 calendar days	12 months	New only
Wisconsin	Wis. Stat. section 218.0171	4	30 days, unit not stated	12 months	New only
Wyoming	W.S. 40-17-101	4	30 business days	12 months	New only

What each state requires when a manufacturer reacquires a lemon and it is resold. Reviewed 2026-09-15. A missing brand is not proof a vehicle was never bought back: some states brand nothing, some lift the brand after a mileage or time limit, and a paper-only disclosure does not survive a lost document.

State	Branding or disclosure rule
Alabama	Title brand plus written disclosure (section 8-20A-4): no resale in Alabama unless the manufacturer discloses the return and the nonconformity in writing, and the Department of Revenue brands the manufacturer's title and all subsequent titles 'THIS VEHICLE WAS RETURNED TO THE MANUFACTURER BECAUSE IT DID NOT CONFORM TO ITS WARRANTY.'
Alaska	Disclosure only, no title brand in the Act. AS 45.45.335: a returned vehicle 'may not be resold by the manufacturer or distributor in the state unless full disclosure of the reason for the return is made to the prospective buyer before the resale is concluded.'
Arizona	Disclosure, no title brand in the lemon law. Section 44-1266: the manufacturer must, 'before offering the motor vehicle for resale, attach to the motor vehicle written notification indicating the motor vehicle has been replaced or repurchased', and the dealer must hand that notification to the purchaser before completion of the sale.
Arkansas	Disclosure plus a re-warranty, no title brand (section 4-90-412). No resale in Arkansas unless the manufacturer gives the same express warranty, whose term 'need only last for twelve thousand (12,000) miles or twelve (12) months after the date of resale, whichever occurs first', plus a written disclosure signed by the consumer that the vehicle was returned for an uncured nonconformity. The disclosure applies to the first resale to a retail customer in Arkansas.
California	Permanent title brand plus signed disclosure. Section 1793.23(c) requires the manufacturer to retitle the vehicle and have the DMV inscribe the ownership certificate 'Lemon Law Buyback' and affix a decal; section 1793.23(f) requires a disclosure statement signed by the transferee before sale: 'THIS VEHICLE WAS REPURCHASED BY ITS MANUFACTURER DUE TO A DEFECT ... THE TITLE ... HAS BEEN PERMANENTLY BRANDED WITH THE NOTATION LEMON LAW BUYBACK.' Section 1793.22(f)(1) separately bars resale unless the nonconformity is disclosed, corrected and warranted for one year.
Colorado	Decal, Department of Revenue notice and resale disclosure are in force now; the TITLE BRAND is date-gated. Before resale the manufacturer or dealer must notify the Department, attach a decal reading 'LEMON LAW BUYBACK' to the driver's door post, and apply for a branded title, and any seller who knows the vehicle is a buyback must disclose it clearly and conspicuously before the sale (42-10-109). But section 42-6-107(1)(a)(III) provides that ON AND AFTER JANUARY 1, 2027 the appropriate brand is 'LEMON LAW BUYBACK' - a Colorado title pulled before then may not display it.
Connecticut	Title brand plus disclosure. The manufacturer must 'stamp the words MANUFACTURER BUYBACK-LEMON clearly and conspicuously on the face of the original title in letters at least one-quarter inch high' and send a copy to the DMV within thirty days, and no returned vehicle 'shall be resold, transferred or leased in the state without clear and conspicuous written disclosure of the fact that such motor vehicle was so returned' (section 42-179).
Delaware	None anywhere in the Delaware Code. Chapter 50 creates no buyback brand and no resale disclosure, and the dealer brand-disclosure statute, 21 Del. C. 6309(d), is exhaustive: a dealer 'must disclose to a buyer if the vehicle title has been branded reconstructed, flood damaged, salvage or was a taxi.' Full-text searches of the authenticated PDFs of Titles 6 and 21 return zero hits for 'lemon' and 'buyback'. A Delaware buyback can be resold with no lemon-specific brand or statutory disclosure.
District of Columbia	Title notation plus contract disclosure. 'The Department of Public Works shall note the fact that the motor vehicle was returned pursuant to this chapter on any certificate of title', and a dealer 'shall state the fact that the motor vehicle was returned ... in any sales contract ... prior to the signing of the contract by a prospective purchaser' (section 50-502(g)). The titling function now sits with the D.C. DMV; the current brand wording on a title was not verified.
Florida	Title brand plus disclosure, BUT THE BRAND CAN BE REMOVED. A repurchased vehicle's title is stamped 'Manufacturer's Buy Back' (319.14(1)(a)) and it may not be sold or leased 'unless the nature of the nonconformity is clearly and conspicuously disclosed ... and the manufacturer warrants to correct such nonconformity for a term of 1 year or 12,000 miles, whichever occurs first' (681.114(2)). Section 319.14(10) lifts the stamping and disclosure duties, and allows a corrected title without the notation, once such a vehicle has 36,000 or more miles or 34 months, whichever is later, and is in private hands.
Georgia	Written disclosure only - GEORGIA DOES NOT BRAND LEMON BUYBACK TITLES. A reacquired vehicle may not be resold, leased or transferred unless 'the fact of the reacquisition and nature of any alleged nonconformity are clearly and conspicuously disclosed in writing', with a one-year/12,000-mile warranty, and the manufacturer must report each reacquisition and resale to the Attorney General within 30 days (10-1-790). The Attorney General's Consumer Protection Division states: 'Georgia only brands titles on salvaged and rebuilt vehicles; it does not automatically brand vehicles reacquired under the Lemon Law,' and warns that an out-of-state buyback retitled in Georgia may lose that state's brand.
Hawaii	Signed disclosure document, no title brand in the chapter. A vehicle returned under chapter 481I (or under another state's law) may not be sold, leased or auctioned unless the defect is disclosed 'on a separate document ... signed by the manufacturer and the purchaser ... in ten point, capitalized type' reading 'IMPORTANT: THIS VEHICLE WAS RETURNED TO THE MANUFACTURER BECAUSE A DEFECT(S) COVERED BY THE MANUFACTURER'S EXPRESS WARRANTY WAS NOT REPAIRED WITHIN A REASONABLE TIME AS PROVIDED BY LAW.', the defect is corrected, and the manufacturer warrants a free fix if it reappears within one year or 12,000 miles (481I-3(k)).
Idaho	Manufacturer resale disclosure plus a fresh warranty, not a title brand. Section 48-905(1): no resale or re-lease in Idaho unless the manufacturer gives the same express warranty for at least '12,000 miles or 12 months after the date of resale, whichever is earlier' and a separate 10-point all-capital statement: 'IMPORTANT: THIS VEHICLE WAS RETURNED TO THE MANUFACTURER BECAUSE IT DID NOT CONFORM TO THE MANUFACTURER'S EXPRESS WARRANTY AND THE NONCONFORMITY WAS NOT CURED WITHIN A REASONABLE TIME AS PROVIDED BY IDAHO LAW.' Section 48-905(2): a vehicle with an unrepaired braking or steering failure 'may not be resold in this state.'
Indiana	Indiana brands the title, under IC 24-5-13.5 rather than the lemon law chapter. IC 24-5-13.5-12: before transferring ownership the manufacturer must place 'Manufacturer Buyback - Disclosure on File' on the original certificate of title and, within 31 days, apply to the bureau for a title in its own name; IC 24-5-13.5-10(b) adds a 12,000-mile/12-month warranty and a contract legend. The brand then follows the vehicle: IC 9-17-3-3.5(b)(1) requires the BMV, 'For a subsequent request for a new certificate of title for a buyback vehicle, whether titled in Indiana or any other state', to carry those words onto the new title, and to maintain a listing of reported buyback vehicles.
Iowa	Title designation plus disclosure. Section 322G.12(1) requires the manufacturer's new title 'and all subsequent registration receipts and certificates of title issued for the motor vehicle' to 'contain a designation indicating that the motor vehicle was returned to the manufacturer', and 322G.12(2) bars knowingly selling, leasing or transferring title 'unless the nature of the nonconformity is clearly and conspicuously disclosed to the prospective transferee, lessee, or buyer.'
Kansas	Disclosure only, no title brand. K.S.A. 50-659(a)(3): a vehicle dealer 'shall not knowingly or intentionally fail to disclose in writing to the consumer' that a vehicle 'was a factory buyback motor vehicle or returned to a vehicle dealer under the provisions of K.S.A. 50-645'; failure creates a rebuttable presumption of intent and is a deceptive act under the Kansas Consumer Protection Act. K.S.A. 50-645 itself has no branding or disclosure provision.
Louisiana	Notice printed on the title itself plus a written instrument. La. R.S. 51:1945.1(A)(1) requires, on sale or transfer of any second-hand vehicle previously returned for nonconformity, a written notice in ten point all capital type: 'IMPORTANT: THIS VEHICLE WAS RETURNED TO THE MANUFACTURER OR DEALER BECAUSE IT DID NOT CONFORM TO ITS WARRANTY AND THE DEFECT OR CONDITION WAS NOT FIXED WITHIN THE TIME PROVIDED BY LOUISIANA LAW'; subsection (A)(2) requires the same notice to 'also be conspicuously printed on the motor vehicle's certificate of title.' A dealer failing to deliver it faces a fine of $500 to $1,000 per violation.
Maine	Title brand plus disclosure. 29-A M.R.S. section 670: for a vehicle returned to the manufacturer, 'The Secretary of State shall issue a certificate of title that includes the following brand: Lemon Law Buyback. All subsequent certificates of title to that vehicle must contain the same brand.' Separately, 10 M.R.S. 1163(7) says such a vehicle 'may not be resold without clear and conspicuous written disclosure to any subsequent purchaser, whether that purchaser is a consumer or a dealer' that it was returned, that it did not conform, and in what ways.
Maryland	Disclosure form filed with the Motor Vehicle Administration; no title brand found in the statute. A manufacturer transferring a returned vehicle to a Maryland dealer must disclose the return in writing 'on a separate piece of paper in 10 point all capital type' with 'The nature of the defect, if any, that resulted in the return' and the vehicle's condition; on resale 'the seller shall provide a copy of the manufacturer's disclosure form to the consumer prior to sale' and then send a copy signed by the consumer to the Administration (14-1502(g)). Section 14-1502(f)(2) separately requires the manufacturer to notify the MVA in writing within 15 days of the return.
Michigan	Michigan's Lemon Law contains no reacquired-vehicle branding or resale-disclosure rule. Act 87 of 1986 runs MCL 257.1401-257.1410 and none of its sections imposes a buyback brand or disclosure; its only title-related duty runs the other way, MCL 257.1408 requiring the Secretary of State to give new-vehicle buyers a boldface notice of lemon-law rights. Whether anything in the Michigan Vehicle Code (1949 PA 300) outside Act 87 brands a buyback was not verified.
Minnesota	Title brand plus a statutory notice, and some vehicles may not be resold at all. On transfer the registrar must record 'lemon law vehicle' on the certificate of title, and subd. 5(a) bars resale in Minnesota unless the manufacturer provides the same express warranty (its term need only last 12,000 miles or 12 months after resale, whichever is earlier) AND furnishes a written statement in 10-point all capital type: 'IMPORTANT: THIS VEHICLE WAS RETURNED TO THE MANUFACTURER BECAUSE IT DID NOT CONFORM TO THE MANUFACTURER'S EXPRESS WARRANTY AND THE NONCONFORMITY WAS NOT CURED WITHIN A REASONABLE TIME AS PROVIDED BY MINNESOTA LAW.' Subd. 5(b) prohibits resale in Minnesota of a vehicle returned for a complete failure of the braking or steering system likely to cause death or serious bodily injury - no disclosure makes that lawful.
Mississippi	None in the lemon law: sections 63-17-151 through 63-17-165 were read in full and contain no requirement that a repurchased vehicle be branded on the title or disclosed to a later buyer.
Missouri	None - and this holds for Missouri titles generally, not merely chapter 407. Sections 407.560 to 407.579 say nothing about reselling a repurchased vehicle, and Missouri's carry-forward title designations are limited by section 301.573 to those in 301.190 and 301.227, which section 301.190.3 enumerates exhaustively: 'Reconstructed Motor Vehicle', 'Motor Change Vehicle', 'Specially Constructed Motor Vehicle', 'Non-USA-Std Motor Vehicle'. No occurrence of lemon, buyback or repurchase. A Missouri buyback can be retitled clean.
Montana	Written disclosure, not a title brand - AND THE DISCLOSURE CAN BE REMOVED. Mont. Code Ann. 61-4-525 in full: 'A motor vehicle that is returned to the manufacturer and that requires replacement or refund may not be sold in the state without a clear and conspicuous written disclosure of the fact that the motor vehicle was returned. The department may prescribe by rule the form and content of the disclosure statement and a procedure by which the disclosure may be removed upon a determination that the motor vehicle is no longer defective.'
Nebraska	None. Sections 60-2701 to 60-2709 contain no title brand and no duty to disclose a manufacturer repurchase to a later buyer. The chapter covers the duty to repair, replace-or-refund, the presumption, mandatory resort to a certified dispute procedure (60-2705), a limitations period (60-2706), attorney's fees, a savings clause and applicability from the 1984 model year.
Nevada	Permanent title brand plus signed disclosure. Before reselling a reacquired vehicle the manufacturer must retitle it, 'Request the Department of Motor Vehicles to inscribe the certificate of ownership for the motor vehicle with the notation Lemon Law Buyback', and affix a decal to the left front doorframe; thereafter any seller must give the buyer a signed disclosure: 'THIS VEHICLE WAS REPURCHASED BY ITS MANUFACTURER BECAUSE OF A DEFECT ... THE TITLE TO THIS VEHICLE HAS BEEN PERMANENTLY INSCRIBED WITH THE NOTATION LEMON LAW BUYBACK.' (NRS 597.682).
New Hampshire	RSA chapter 357-D imposes no title brand and no disclosure duty to the next buyer. Its only resale control is an outright ban on the worst cases: RSA 357-D:12, II, 'Any manufacturer or its agent or authorized dealer is prohibited from reselling in New Hampshire any vehicle determined or adjudicated by the board as having a serious safety defect' - defined as 'a life-threatening malfunction or nonconformity that impedes the consumer's ability to control or operate the motor vehicle ... or creates a risk of fire or explosion.' Whether New Hampshire brands a buyback under its general title law (RSA title XXI) was NOT verified and is not foreclosed.
New Jersey	Permanent title brand plus a signed notice. On receipt of a returned vehicle the manufacturer or dealer must cause 'R- RETURNED TO MANUFACTURER UNDER LEMON LAW OR OTHER PROCEEDING' to be 'clearly and conspicuously stamped on the face of the original certificate of title', submit it to the Motor Vehicle Commission so the title 'shall be permanently branded', and give the next consumer a separate 10-point boldface Notice of Nonconformity for which the buyer signs a receipt (N.J.A.C. 13:45A-26.3(c); N.J.S.A. 56:12-35).
New Mexico	Disclosure to the next buyer, not a title brand - an affirmative finding. Section 57-16A-7 bars resale of an improperly repaired returned vehicle 'unless the manufacturer provides full written disclosure of the reason for the return to any prospective buyer.' Section 57-16A-7.1 requires anyone who replaced or repurchased a vehicle to 'attach to the motor vehicle written notification indicating that the motor vehicle has been replaced or repurchased' before offering it for resale, with a cause of action against anyone removing it. Under 12.2.4.28 NMAC it is also an unfair or deceptive trade practice to sell a lemon-law return without written disclosure of the return and the defects. A full-text search of NMSA Chapter 66 (Motor Vehicles, 1024 pages) returns zero hits for 'lemon', 'buyback' or 'repurchase'; its only ownership-document brands are salvage and NONREPAIRABLE.
New York	The brand goes on the title itself. A manufacturer accepting return 'shall notify the commissioner of the department of motor vehicles' and must 'disclose, in accordance with the provisions of section four hundred seventeen-a of the vehicle and traffic law prior to resale either at wholesale or retail, that it was previously returned to the manufacturer for nonconformity to its warranty' (198-a(c)(2)). Under Veh. & Traf. Law section 417-a the buyer gets a ten-point all-capital notice - 'IMPORTANT: THIS VEHICLE WAS RETURNED TO THE MANUFACTURER OR DEALER BECAUSE IT DID NOT CONFORM TO ITS WARRANTY AND THE DEFECT OR CONDITION WAS NOT FIXED WITHIN A REASONABLE TIME AS PROVIDED BY NEW YORK LAW.' - and that notice must be 'conspicuously printed on the motor vehicle's certificate of title'.
North Carolina	Statutory resale disclosure, NOT a title brand - Article 15A creates no branding requirement. Section 20-351.3(d): if a manufacturer, its agent or its authorized dealer resells a vehicle returned under this Article or any other state's law, 'regardless of whether there was any judicial determination that the motor vehicle had any defect', it must disclose to the subsequent purchaser before the sale both the return and 'The defect or condition or series of defects or conditions which substantially impaired the value of the motor vehicle', and any subsequent purchaser buying for resale with notice must pass the disclosure on.
North Dakota	Disclosure and a fresh warranty, not a title brand. Section 51-07-22: no sale or lease in North Dakota unless the manufacturer gives the same express warranty for 'at least twelve thousand miles or twelve months after the date of resale, whichever is earlier', plus a separate document signed by manufacturer and purchaser in ten-point capitalized type: 'IMPORTANT: THIS VEHICLE WAS RETURNED TO THE MANUFACTURER BECAUSE DEFECTS COVERED BY THE MANUFACTURER'S EXPRESSED WARRANTY WERE NOT REPAIRED WITHIN A REASONABLE TIME AS PROVIDED BY NORTH DAKOTA LAW'. Shipping such a vehicle out of state for resale requires 'full disclosure of the reasons for return'. Violation is a class B misdemeanor.
Ohio	Ohio brands the title and bars resale outright in the worst cases. A buyback must be retitled and every certificate of title 'bears or is stamped on its face with the words BUYBACK: This vehicle was returned to the manufacturer because it may not have conformed to its warranty.', and before the buyer signs anything the manufacturer must provide a separate written warning listing each defect (1345.76(A)(2), (C)). R.C. 1345.76(B): where a vehicle was returned under section 1345.72 or a similar law of another state 'because of a nonconformity likely to cause death or serious bodily injury if the vehicle is driven, the motor vehicle may not be sold, leased, or operated in this state.'
Oklahoma	Permanent title brand. A manufacturer that reacquires a vehicle must retitle it in its own name and 'Request the Oklahoma Tax Commission to brand the certificate of title with the notation Lemon Law Buyback. Any branding of a title as a Lemon Law Buyback shall remain permanently on the title.' (15 O.S. section 901.1).
Oregon	Permanent title brand plus a signed notice from a knowing reseller. The manufacturer must ask the Department of Transportation to title the vehicle in its name and 'Inscribe on the certificate of title for the motor vehicle and in the department's records ... the notation Lemon Law Buyback.' (646A.405(1)). Under 646A.405(2) a person who acquires the vehicle in order to sell, lease or transfer it AND 'that knows or should have known' of the repurchase or the notation must give the notice 'This vehicle was repurchased by its manufacturer in accordance with Oregon's consumer warranty law because of a defect in the vehicle. The title to this vehicle has been permanently inscribed with the notation Lemon Law Buyback.' and obtain the buyer's signature acknowledging it.
Pennsylvania	Pennsylvania both brands and discloses. A repurchased vehicle may not be resold unless the manufacturer gives the buyer a separate all-capitals statement beginning 'IMPORTANT: THIS VEHICLE WAS REPURCHASED BY THE MANUFACTURER BECAUSE IT DID NOT CONFORM TO THE MANUFACTURER'S EXPRESS WARRANTY', the dealer discloses it before sale and keeps a signed receipt, and the seller 'applies for and receives the designation of a branded title from the department' (section 10(a)(2)-(6)).
Rhode Island	Written disclosure rather than a statutory title brand: a vehicle returned under this chapter may not be 'resold or re-leased in the state without clear and conspicuous written disclosure to the prospective purchaser or lessee prior to resale of the fact that it was so returned due to a nonconformity', on a form prescribed by the Attorney General (31-5.2-9). Whether the RI DMV places a permanent brand on a buyback title was not verified.
South Carolina	Disclosure and agency notification rather than a statutory title brand. A repurchased vehicle may not be resold unless 'The manufacturer notifies the Administrator of the Department of Consumer Affairs within thirty calendar days, in writing, of the vehicle identification number of that motor vehicle, the reason that the vehicle was repurchased, and provides a statement that all necessary repairs and adjustments have been made', and gives the next retail buyer a twelve-month or 12,000-mile warranty (SECTION 56-28-100). SECTION 56-28-110: 'Each subsequent purchaser must be notified by the seller of the fact that the vehicle was required to be repurchased', with a penalty up to five hundred dollars per vehicle.
South Dakota	South Dakota brands the title. SDCL 32-6D-9: no resale in the state unless the manufacturer discloses the return and the nonconformity in writing to the subsequent purchaser and surrenders the title to the Department of Revenue, which 'shall brand the title issued to the manufacturer and all subsequent titles to the motor vehicle with the following statement: This vehicle was returned to the manufacturer because it did not conform to its warranty.'
Texas	A disclosure statement that travels with the vehicle; no title brand verified here. Sec. 2301.610(a): a manufacturer ordered to repurchase or replace 'shall, through its franchised dealer, issue a disclosure statement stating that the vehicle was repurchased or replaced by the manufacturer, distributor, or converter under this subchapter', and 'The statement must accompany the vehicle through the first retail purchase following the issuance of the statement' with a department toll-free number for details of the defect. Sec. 2301.610(b) requires the manufacturer to restore the cause of the repurchase to factory specifications and 'issue a new 12-month, 12,000-mile warranty on the vehicle.'
Utah	A written buyback disclosure at EVERY resale. Utah Code section 41-3-408(1)(a) bars a manufacturer or dealer from selling or leasing a known buyback or nonconforming vehicle 'without prior written disclosure in a clear and conspicuous manner', using the statutory form stating 'This is a used motor vehicle. It was previously returned to the manufacturer or its agent in exchange for a replacement motor vehicle or a refund because it was alleged or found to have the following nonconformities', signed by the buyer and carrying the warning 'THIS DISCLOSURE MUST BE GIVEN BY THE SELLER TO THE BUYER EVERY TIME THIS VEHICLE IS RESOLD'; a matching notice must be affixed to the windshield of a nonconforming vehicle (41-3-408(3)).
Vermont	Title brand plus a window sticker - but the sticker duty binds only trade sellers. 9 V.S.A. 4181(a): 'Any manufacturer or its agent or any dealer registered in this State who attempts to resell a motor vehicle after a final determination, adjudication, or settlement resulting in the vehicle being returned pursuant to the provisions of this chapter, or under similar laws of any other state, shall apprise prospective buyers in Vermont of such return by means of a clearly visible window sticker', and 'Notice that a vehicle has been returned pursuant to such law shall also be conspicuously printed on the motor vehicle certificate of title.' The brand travels with the vehicle regardless of seller; the sticker duty does not reach a private individual. Manufacturers, agents and dealers are also 'prohibited from reselling in Vermont any vehicle determined or adjudicated as having a serious safety defect.'
Virginia	Written disclosure down the chain rather than a title brand. Before resale the manufacturer must 'disclose in writing in a clear and conspicuous manner, on a separate piece of paper in ten-point capital type, to the Virginia dealer that this motor vehicle was returned to the manufacturer, distributor or factory branch, the nature of the defect which resulted in the return, and the condition of the motor vehicle at the time of transfer to the Virginia dealer', and 'It shall be the responsibility of the dealer that receives this disclosure to give notice of its contents to any prospective purchaser or lessee prior to sale or lease' (59.1-207.16:1(B)). The Class 3 misdemeanor in subsection (C) reaches manufacturers and distributors only - not a dealer who fails to pass the disclosure on. Full-text searches of Va. Code Title 46.2 chapter 6 article 1, chapter 15 and chapter 16 (which creates Virginia's title brands) return zero occurrences of 'lemon' and create no buyback brand.
Washington	Title brand plus a window notice, and some vehicles may not be resold at all. 'When a manufacturer reacquires a vehicle under this chapter, the department of licensing must issue a new title with a title brand indicating the motor vehicle was returned under this chapter', and before the first resale the seller must attach an attorney-general-issued 'resale window display disclosure notice' and deliver 'a resale disclosure form setting forth information identifying the nonconformity and a title brand' (RCW 19.118.061(3)-(4)). A vehicle adjudicated to have an uncorrected serious safety defect may not be resold.
West Virginia	Resale barred unless the vehicle is fixed AND disclosed in writing; no title brand in the article. A returned vehicle 'may not be resold in this state unless the manufacturer corrects the nonconformity and provides the consumer with a written statement on a separate piece of paper in ten point all capital type' reading 'IMPORTANT: THIS VEHICLE WAS RETURNED TO THE MANUFACTURER BECAUSE IT DID NOT CONFORM TO THE MANUFACTURER'S EXPRESS WARRANTY AND THE NONCONFORMITY WAS NOT CURED WITHIN A REASONABLE TIME AS PROVIDED BY WEST VIRGINIA LAW' (section 46A-6A-7).
Wisconsin	Wisconsin brands the title. Per the Wisconsin DOT: 'As part of the Lemon Law claims process, a Manufacturer Buyback brand must be added to the vehicle title after it comes into possession of the manufacturer. The Manufacturer Buyback brand alerts potential purchasers that the vehicle met the requirements of a lemon and was returned to the manufacturer,' and 'Buyback brands cannot be removed.'
Wyoming	None, and this is an affirmative finding. Wyoming's lemon law contains no buyback branding or resale-disclosure provision, and Wyoming's title-brand statutes create no manufacturer-reacquired or 'lemon' brand: the disclosure duty in W.S. 31-2-109(a) reaches only a vehicle 'which carries a title branded pursuant to this article', and that article's brands are salvage, rebuilt, flood, nonrepairable and junk. A full-text search of the official Title 31 PDF for 'reacquir', 'buyback', 'buy back', 'lemon' and 'nonconform' returns zero hits. A buyback titled in Wyoming may carry no state brand and trigger no statutory disclosure.

What each state's numbers leave out (50 states)

AlabamaAla. Code section 8-20A-1 et seq. (presumption at section 8-20A-2(c)): Days out of service: 30 CALENDAR days.
Three attempts are not enough alone: section 8-20A-2(c) requires 3+ repairs of the same condition, at least one inside the rights period, PLUS a final attempt by the manufacturer.
repairAttemptsSeriousSafety null because the statute creates no lower serious-safety threshold.
Two windows: coverageMonths/Miles record the 12-month/12,000-mile 'lemon law rights period' (8-20A-1(8)); qualifying attempts are counted over 24 months/24,000 miles. Do not render these as the repair-counting window.
Alabama Department of Revenue, Rule 810-5-75-.47 (Manufacturer Buyback title)
AlaskaAS 45.45.300 - AS 45.45.360 (presumption at AS 45.45.320): Days out of service: 30 BUSINESS days (AS 45.45.320(2)). Printing a bare 30 beside calendar-day states overstates Alaska's threshold.
coverageMiles null: no mileage cap; the window is the express warranty term or one year, whichever ends first.
repairAttemptsSeriousSafety null: no lower serious-safety threshold in AS 45.45.300-.360.
Whether the Alaska DMV brands a buyback title was not verified; Title 28 was not searched.
Alaska Department of Law, Consumer Protection Unit - Alaska's Lemon Law
ArizonaAriz. Rev. Stat. sections 44-1261 to 44-1266 (presumption at section 44-1264); used-vehicle warranty at section 44-1267: Days out of service: 30 CALENDAR days.
The presumption requires 'prior direct written notification' to the manufacturer and an opportunity to cure (44-1264(C)).
repairAttemptsSeriousSafety null: section 44-1264 sets no lower serious-safety threshold.
Whether the Arizona MVD brands a buyback title was not verified; Title 28 was not searched.
Arizona Attorney General - Auto Purchases (consumer tips)
ArkansasArk. Code Ann. section 4-90-401 et seq. (repair attempts at section 4-90-406(a); presumption at section 4-90-410): 'Calendar day' is defined as 'any day of the week other than a legal holiday' (4-90-403), so the 30-day count is not a plain calendar count.
The period is 24 months or 24,000 miles 'whichever is latter' - the LONGER of the two, unlike almost every state. Sources saying 'whichever comes first' are wrong.
TWO presumptions: the 3-attempt, 1-attempt-safety and 30-day routes raise a REBUTTABLE presumption (4-90-410); section 4-90-406(a)(3) creates a NON-REBUTTABLE one if the manufacturer misses the 10-day response and 10-day cure windows.
A third route at 4-90-410: 'five (5) or more attempts, on separate occasions, to repair any nonconformities that together substantially impair the use and value'.
After 3 attempts (or 1 for a defect likely to cause death or serious bodily injury) the consumer must notify the manufacturer by certified or registered mail and allow a final attempt.
The AG guide is stale on the weight exclusion (13,000 lbs); Act 92 of 2021 raised it to 14,000.
Arkansas Attorney General - A Consumer's Guide to the Arkansas Lemon Law
CaliforniaCal. Civ. Code section 1793.22 (Tanner Consumer Protection Act; branding at section 1793.23): The trigger is 'MORE THAN 30 calendar days', so exactly 30 does not reach it; extended only if repairs cannot be performed for reasons beyond the manufacturer's control.
18 months / 18,000 miles is the TANNER PRESUMPTION window, not the limit of Song-Beverly protection; outside it a buyer may still prove a reasonable number of attempts, and the refund-or-replace duty in 1793.2(d) has no month or mileage cap.
The presumption applies only if the direct-notification requirement was clearly disclosed in the warranty or owner's manual, and may not be asserted before using a qualified third-party dispute process where one exists.
AB 1755 (2024) added Code Civ. Proc. 871.20-871.30 and SB 26 (eff. April 2, 2025) made that chapter OPT-IN: it binds only manufacturers electing in under 871.29, not all actions filed after Jan 1, 2025.
Unit read from the statutory trigger rather than a labelling clause: the threshold is worded as 'MORE THAN 30 calendar days', so exactly 30 does not reach it.
California Department of Consumer Affairs, Arbitration Certification Program
ColoradoC.R.S. section 42-10-103 (title 42, article 10, as amended by SB24-192): Days out of service: 24 BUSINESS days.
CRITICAL: these thresholds apply only to vehicles SOLD OR LEASED ON OR AFTER AUGUST 7, 2024 (SB24-192 sec. 11(2)). Older vehicles keep the prior rule: 4 attempts, 30 business days, one year, and no safety-based track. For a used-car audience that is the common case.
The presumption does not run unless the consumer sent prior written notice by certified mail and gave 10 business days to cure after receipt; that cure attempt counts as one attempt (42-10-103(2)(c)).
The two-year and twenty-four-day periods are extended for war, invasion, strike, fire, flood or other natural disaster; the 30-month limitations period is tolled while the vehicle is out for repair.
Colorado General Assembly - SB24-192 signed act text
ConnecticutConn. Gen. Stat. section 42-179 (chapter 743b); used vehicles at chapter 743f, section 42-221 et seq.: Days out of service: 30 CALENDAR days, tied to the same 2-year/24,000-mile clock ('during the applicable period, determined pursuant to subparagraph (A)').
The 2-attempt safety threshold runs on a SHORTER clock: the express warranty term or one year from original delivery, whichever ends first (42-179(f)).
Both periods are extended for war, invasion, strike, fire, flood or natural disaster, and no claim lies unless at least one repair attempt was made or refused.
Connecticut used-car warranty figures are withheld pending P.A. 26-100, effective on or about October 1, 2026.
Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection - Lemon Law program
Delaware6 Del. C. section 5004 (title 6, chapter 50, Automobile Warranties): The trigger is 'MORE THAN 30 calendar days' (the 31st day). The clock starts on the first day the consumer presents the car with a written document describing the nonconformity, and is extended only for conditions beyond the manufacturer's control.
The presumption does not apply unless the manufacturer 'has received prior direct written notification from or on behalf of the consumer and has had an opportunity to repair' (5004(b)).
coverageMiles null: no mileage cap; the window is the warranty term or one year, whichever is earlier.
repairAttemptsSeriousSafety null: no lower serious-safety threshold exists.
Unit read from the statutory trigger rather than a labelling clause: the threshold is worded as 'MORE THAN 30 calendar days', so exactly 30 does not reach it.
Delaware Department of Justice, Consumer Protection Unit - Delaware Lemon Law
District of ColumbiaD.C. Code section 50-502 (Automobile Consumer Protection Act of 1984): Days out of service: 30 days counted 'during either period, whichever is the earlier date' (50-502(d)(3)) - tied to the 18,000-mile / 2-year windows, not free-standing.
The window runs from delivery 'to the original purchaser', not from a later resale.
The 1-attempt safety route is defined: 50-501(11), 'Safety-related defect means an impairment which reduces the operator's ability to control the motor vehicle in normal operation or which creates a risk of fire, explosion, or other life-threatening malfunction.'
Whether D.C. municipal regulations impose a used-car warranty beyond section 50-505 was not checked.
Office of the Attorney General for the District of Columbia - Consumer Alert: Lemon Law
FloridaFla. Stat. section 681.104 (Motor Vehicle Warranty Enforcement Act, chapter 681): Days out of service: 30 days, or 60 for a recreational vehicle, excluding routine-maintenance downtime.
The three-attempt trigger is three repairs PLUS a final manufacturer attempt after written notice, if undertaken. Printing '3' alone overstates it.
The written notice becomes due once the vehicle has been out of service a cumulative 15 or more days (681.104(1)(b)); the 30-day prong also needs an opportunity to inspect or repair.
coverageMiles null: no mileage limit. The rights period is 'the period ending 24 months after the date of the original delivery' (681.102(9)).
repairAttemptsSeriousSafety null: chapter 681 sets no lower serious-safety number.
The disclosure form's wording is set by rule of the Department of Legal Affairs (the Attorney General) and was not read; the title-stamping agency is DHSMV. Florida AG buyback pages returned HTTP 403.
The Florida Legislature, Online Sunshine - Fla. Stat. sections 681.102, 681.104, 681.114, 319.14
GeorgiaO.C.G.A. section 10-1-784 (Georgia Lemon Law, sections 10-1-780 to 10-1-798): Days out of service: 30 CALENDAR days.
isPresumption FALSE: Georgia uses a deeming rule - 'A reasonable number of attempts shall be deemed to have been undertaken ... if, during the lemon law rights period' - not a rebuttable presumption.
The 3-attempt and safety prongs are not the end: under 10-1-784(a)(2)(A) the consumer must then notify the manufacturer by statutory overnight delivery or certified mail, and 'The manufacturer shall have 28 days from its receipt of the notice to make a final attempt to repair.' The 30-day prong stands alone.
Georgia Department of Law, Consumer Protection Division - Georgia Lemon Law statute text (Jan 2025)
HawaiiHaw. Rev. Stat. section 481I-3 (chapter 481I, sections 481I-1 to 481I-4): Days out of service: 30 BUSINESS days, defined as days 'during which the service departments of authorized dealers ... are normally open for business'.
The presumptions 'shall not apply unless the manufacturer has received a written report of the nonconformity from the consumer and has had a reasonable opportunity to repair'.
24 months / 24,000 miles is an outer bound: the rights period is the express warranty term, two years, or 24,000 miles, 'whichever occurs first' - it bites on motorcycles, which the chapter covers.
Both the rights period and the thirty-day count are extended for war, invasion, strike, fire, flood or natural disaster.
Whether Hawaii's titling system stamps a lemon brand was not verified.
Hawaii DCCA, Regulated Industries Complaints Office - HRS chapter 481I and Lemon Law handbook
IdahoIdaho Code section 48-903 (title 48, chapter 9, sections 48-901 to 48-908): Days out of service: 30 BUSINESS days, a 'cumulative total ... during the term or during the period, whichever is the earlier date'.
The repairs must occur WITHIN the warranty term / two years / 24,000 miles, whichever is earliest - not after coverage lapses. The AG manual's paraphrase inverts this timing; the statute controls.
The 1-attempt safety route is narrow: complete failure of the steering or braking system likely to cause death or serious bodily injury. Not a general safety threshold.
The presumption 'applies against a manufacturer only if the manufacturer ... has received prior written notification ... at least once and an opportunity to cure' (48-903(5)).
Section 48-903(6) preserves a claim for repairs within three years of delivery if the consumer first reported the defect during the warranty term.
CONFIDENCE: only the verifying pass read the statute - legislature.idaho.gov refused connections, so sections 48-901 to 48-908 were read via Internet Archive captures of the official URLs.
Office of the Attorney General, State of Idaho - 'Idaho Lemon Law' consumer manual
Illinois815 ILCS 380/3 (New Vehicle Buyer Protection Act, 815 ILCS 380/1 to 380/8); used vehicles at 815 ILCS 505/2L: Days out of service: 30 BUSINESS days (380/3(b)(2)).
The 4 attempts count repairs of THE SAME nonconformity, still unresolved (380/3(b)(1)) - not four service visits.
The presumption is disabled without notice: 'In no event shall the presumption ... apply against a manufacturer ... unless the manufacturer has received prior direct written notification from or on behalf of the consumer, and has an opportunity to correct the alleged defect' (380/3(h)). Abuse, neglect or unauthorized modification is a defence.
The clock runs from DELIVERY: 'one year or 12,000 miles, whichever occurs first after the date of the delivery of a new vehicle' (380/2(f)), suspended for war, invasion, strike, fire, flood or natural disaster.
repairAttemptsSeriousSafety null - an affirmative absence: none of the Act's eight sections sets a lower serious-safety threshold.
WITHHELD: brandingOrDisclosureRule. No branding or resale-disclosure provision appears in the eight sections read, but no official source was read on whether an Illinois title is branded for a manufacturer buyback, so nothing is asserted.
CONFIDENCE: only the verifying pass read the statute; ilga.gov refuses connections from this network, so the official section documents were retrieved through a text proxy returning the ilga.gov page verbatim.
Office of the Illinois Attorney General - Auto Buying, Financing and Repair
IndianaIC 24-5-13 (term of protection at IC 24-5-13-7; repair attempts at IC 24-5-13-15); buyback disclosure at IC 24-5-13.5 and IC 9-17-3-3.5: Days out of service: 30 BUSINESS days, and IC 24-5-13-2 defines 'business day' as 'a day other than Sunday or a legal holiday' - Saturdays count, so thirty is about five calendar weeks, not six.
The count is of 'the same nonconformity ... at least four (4) times'; the days prong is a 'cumulative total of at least thirty (30) business days' for 'any nonconformity', so days for different defects add up.
isPresumption FALSE: Indiana uses deeming language - 'A reasonable number of attempts is considered to have been undertaken ... if'. The manufacturer's escape is the affirmative defences in IC 24-5-13-18 (no substantial impairment; abuse, neglect or unauthorized modification).
The thirty days are extended for strike, civil unrest, fire, natural disaster, terrorist attack, act of God or act of war, with the burden on the manufacturer.
repairAttemptsSeriousSafety null - an affirmative absence: no lower serious-safety threshold exists in the chapter.
CONFIDENCE: only the verifying pass read the statute; iga.in.gov serves the Code through a JavaScript shadow DOM and its data endpoint returns HTTP 403.
Office of the Indiana Attorney General - 'Indiana Lemon Law' fact sheet
IowaIowa Code ch. 322G (rights period at section 322G.2(8); presumption at section 322G.4(3)): Days out of service: 30 days 'exclusive of down time for routine maintenance prescribed by the owner's manual'.
Three attempts are not enough alone: 322G.4(3)(a)(1) requires three examinations or repairs 'plus a final attempt by the manufacturer to repair the motor vehicle if undertaken as provided for in subsection 1'.
24 months / 24,000 miles is an outer bound: the rights period is the manufacturer's written warranty term, two years, or 24,000 miles, 'whichever expires first'.
Iowa Legislature, Iowa Code 2026, chapter 322G
KansasK.S.A. 50-645: Days out of service: 30 CALENDAR days.
Kansas has a THIRD trigger this row does not capture: 50-645(d)(3), 'there have been 10 or more attempts to repair any nonconformities which substantially impair the use and value'. The prongs are joined by 'or', so ten failed repairs across ten different defects qualify.
The whole presumption is conditioned on notice: subsection (d) opens 'If the manufacturer receives actual notice of the nonconformity'. Dealer repairs without notice reaching the manufacturer do not trigger it.
Where the manufacturer runs a 16 C.F.R. part 703 dispute procedure, the refund/replacement provisions do not apply to a consumer who has not first used it (50-645(e)).
coverageMiles null: no mileage cap; the window is the warranty term or one year, whichever is earlier.
The current Kansas AG consumer page returned HTTP 403 and was not used for any figure.
Kansas Office of Revisor of Statutes
LouisianaLa. R.S. 51:1941 through 51:1948 (presumption at 51:1943; mandatory remedy at 51:1944): Days out of service: 45 CALENDAR days - materially longer than the 30 most states use.
coverageMonths 12 is a ceiling: 'within the warranty term or during a period of one year following the date of the original delivery ..., whichever is the earlier date', so a shorter express warranty controls.
Louisiana states the same thresholds twice: 51:1943 as a presumption, and 51:1944(A) as the direct trigger for a MANDATORY replace-or-refund duty with no presumption language. isPresumption true understates this.
repairAttemptsSeriousSafety null and coverageMiles null: the chapter sets neither.
Louisiana State Legislature, Louisiana Laws (Title 51, Chapter 27)
Maine10 M.R.S. ch. 203-A, sections 1161 to 1169 (presumption at section 1163(3)): Days out of service: 15 BUSINESS days - which is why Maine's 15 is not comparable to another state's 30 calendar days.
The 1-attempt threshold is narrow: section 1163(3)(A-2) reaches only a nonconformity that 'has resulted in a serious failure of either the braking or steering systems'. Not a general safety-defect threshold.
The window is the earliest of three: the express warranty term, 3 years from original delivery, or the first 18,000 miles.
Tension worth knowing: the duty in section 1163 has no newness limit, but section 1161(5) defines the AG's state-certified arbitration programme in terms of complaints 'dealing with new motor vehicles', so the practical remedy may be narrower than the statutory right.
Reclassified 2026-09-16: Maine has no used-car lemon statute. Its lemon law is keyed to the express warranty and the clock still runs from ORIGINAL delivery, which is the same mechanism Hawaii has and Hawaii is classified new-only. The nine other used-car jurisdictions each cite a second, separate used-vehicle statute; Maine cites none because none exists.
Maine Office of the Revisor of Statutes; Maine Attorney General, Consumer Protection
MarylandMd. Code, Commercial Law section 14-1502 (warranty period defined at section 14-1501(e)(1)): Days out of service: '30 or more days during the warranty period'; the statute does not label them calendar or business days.
repairAttemptsSeriousSafety 1 is NOT a general serious-safety threshold. Section 14-1502(d)(3) reaches only a defect 'resulting in failure of the braking or steering system ... subject to the same repair at least once within the warranty period', where the manufacturer was notified and given an opportunity to cure AND 'the repair does not bring the vehicle into compliance with the motor vehicle safety inspection laws of the State.' All three conditions must hold.
The 24-month / 18,000-mile figures come from 14-1501(e)(1), not 14-1502, which states no month or mileage number: the period is 'the earlier of: (i) the motor vehicle's first 18,000 miles of operation; or (ii) 24 months following the date of original delivery'. Section 14-1501(e)(2) adds that this 'does not extend any manufacturer's express warranty.'
Whether the MVA prints a brand on the title itself was not verified.
Maryland General Assembly - Commercial Law sections 14-1501 and 14-1502
MassachusettsM.G.L. c. 90, section 7N1/2 (New and Leased Car Lemon Law); used vehicles at M.G.L. c. 90, section 7N1/4: Days out of service: 15 BUSINESS days for the NEW-car law; the used-car law uses 11 business days.
SOURCING: neither pass read the statute - malegislature.gov was unreachable - so every figure comes from Massachusetts consumer-agency and Attorney General publications rather than section 7N1/2.
isPresumption WITHHELD: the guides word the thresholds as requirements rather than a rebuttable presumption, but the statutory verb was never read, so neither characterisation is asserted.
Meeting a threshold is NOT sufficient: 'you must give the manufacturer one final opportunity to remedy the situation ... not to exceed seven business days.'
repairAttemptsSeriousSafety WITHHELD: no lower figure appears in the official guides and the statute could not be checked.
brandingOrDisclosureRule WITHHELD: no official source read here states a title-brand or resale-disclosure rule for a manufacturer-repurchased vehicle.
A Dealers' Guide cited by the first pass gave the used-car out-of-service threshold as 10 business days; the live consumer guide says 11. The 11 is used; that discrepancy is why this row is low confidence.
Massachusetts Office of Consumer Affairs and Business Regulation - Guide to New and Leased Car Lemon Law; Guide to Used Vehicle Warranty Law
MichiganMCL 257.1403(5)(a) and (5)(b) (presumption); reporting deadline at MCL 257.1402 (Act 87 of 1986): Days out of service: '30 or more days OR PARTS OF DAYS during the term of the manufacturer's express warranty, or within 1 year from the date of delivery to the original consumer, whichever is earlier' - the 'parts of days' wording favours the consumer and most summaries drop it.
isPresumption TRUE: MCL 257.1403(5) reads 'It shall be presumed that a reasonable number of attempts have been undertaken to repair a defect or condition if 1 of the following occurs'. The Attorney General's paraphrase reads as a hard rule; the statute does not.
The 4 repairs must be of 'the same defect or condition that substantially impairs the use or value' and within 2 years of the FIRST repair attempt, with the defect continuing. Each branch also requires written return-receipt notice (after the third repair, or after 25 days out of service) plus a final 5-business-day cure period.
The 12-month figure is the REPORTING deadline in MCL 257.1402, a different section from the presumption.
repairAttemptsSeriousSafety null - an affirmative absence: Act 87 sets no lower serious-safety threshold.
CONFIDENCE: only the verifying pass read the statute; legislature.mi.gov blocks automated clients with a web application firewall.
Michigan Department of Attorney General, Consumer Protection - Michigan's Lemon Law
MinnesotaMinn. Stat. section 325F.665 (presumption at subd. 3; resale at subd. 5); used vehicles at Minn. Stat. section 325F.662: Days out of service: 30 BUSINESS days.
The 1-attempt safety threshold applies to a complete failure of the steering or braking system likely to cause death or serious bodily injury; not a general safety threshold.
coverageMiles null: the lemon law window is the express warranty term or two years from original delivery, with no mileage cap.
The 325F.662 used-vehicle tiers are statutory MINIMA and are heavily qualified by the subd. 3 exclusions; do not render them as protection every Minnesota used-car buyer has.
Minnesota Office of the Revisor of Statutes
MississippiMiss. Code Ann. section 63-17-159 (Motor Vehicle Warranty Enforcement Act, sections 63-17-151 to 63-17-165): Days out of service: 15 WORKING days - about three calendar weeks. A cell reading '15 days' understates it. The count excludes routine-maintenance downtime and may be extended when repair services are unavailable for reasons beyond the manufacturer's control.
repairAttemptsSeriousSafety null and coverageMiles null: the Act sets neither. The window is the express warranty's terms or one year from original delivery, whichever expires earlier.
Amendment check: the Legislature's code-section lookup shows no measure affecting 63-17-157 or 63-17-159 in any regular session 2020-2026. Section 63-17-155 was amended in 2021 and 2022 to lengthen the exclusion list (electric bicycles, personal delivery devices, golf carts/low-speed vehicles); the 2019-edition PDF used here is accurate for every figure but stale in that list.
Whether any Mississippi title statute outside this Act (Title 63, chapter 21) brands a buyback was not checked.
Mississippi Motor Vehicle Commission - Motor Vehicle Warranty Enforcement Act
MissouriMo. Rev. Stat. sections 407.560 to 407.579 (presumption at section 407.571): Days out of service: 30 WORKING days, 'exclusive of down time for routine maintenance as prescribed by the manufacturer', extendable when repair services are unavailable for reasons beyond the manufacturer's control.
The coverage window is in section 407.571 itself: 'within the terms, conditions, or limitations of the express warranty, or during the period of one year following the date of original delivery ..., whichever expires earlier'. Section 407.573.1 separately allows that period to be EXTENDED where a reported problem is unrepaired at its expiry.
Section 407.569 supplies affirmative defences that make the presumption rebuttable in practice, including that the nonconformity 'does not substantially impair the use, market value, or safety'.
coverageMiles null and repairAttemptsSeriousSafety null: Missouri sets neither.
Missouri Revisor of Statutes; Missouri Attorney General, 'Know Your Rights: A Missouri Consumer Guide'
MontanaMont. Code Ann. sections 61-4-501 through 61-4-533 (presumption at 61-4-504): Days out of service: 30 BUSINESS days - roughly six calendar weeks.
The 30-day clock runs only AFTER notice: 'out of service because of nonconformity for a cumulative total of 30 or more business days during the warranty period after notification of the manufacturer, agent, or dealer.'
repairAttemptsSeriousSafety null: sections 61-4-501 to 61-4-533 set no lower serious-safety threshold.
Whether Montana's MVD also stamps the certificate of title was not verified. The Montana DOJ consumer-protection page returned HTTP 403 to both passes and was not used for any figure.
Montana Code Annotated, Montana Legislative Services
NebraskaNeb. Rev. Stat. sections 60-2701 to 60-2709 (presumption at 60-2704): Days out of service: 40 days - higher than almost every other state. The statute says 'a cumulative total of forty or more days during such term or during such period, whichever is the earlier date' without labelling them calendar or business days.
The presumption never applies unless the manufacturer received 'prior written direct notification by certified mail' and an opportunity to cure. Many summaries omit this.
Where the manufacturer has a procedure certified by the Director of Motor Vehicles, the refund or replacement provisions 'shall not apply to any consumer who has not first resorted to such a procedure'.
Any action must be commenced within one year after the express warranty expires or two years after original delivery, whichever is earlier (60-2706).
coverageMiles null: no mileage cap.
nebraskalegislature.gov refused every direct connection from both passes, so the statutory text was read from web.archive.org captures of those official pages; the AG's live page independently states 4 attempts, 40 days, 12 months and the certified-mail requirement. The Nebraska DMV lemon-law URLs cited by the first pass return HTTP 404.
Nebraska Attorney General, Protect The Good Life - Auto Fraud and Lemon Law
NevadaNev. Rev. Stat. sections 597.600 to 597.688 (presumption at NRS 597.630(2); branding at NRS 597.682): Days out of service: 30 CALENDAR days, but extendable: 'if the necessary repairs cannot be made for reasons which are beyond the control of the manufacturer or its agent or authorized dealer, the number of days required to give rise to the presumption must be appropriately extended.'
coverageMiles null and repairAttemptsSeriousSafety null: Nevada sets neither.
CONFIDENCE: the live Nevada Legislature site is behind a Cloudflare block that refused both passes and ag.nv.gov returned 'Request Rejected'. The text was read from a web.archive.org capture of the official NRS chapter 597 page stamped '[Rev. 6/29/2024]', the 2023 NRS edition; a post-2023 amendment would not be reflected.
The replace-or-refund duty is NRS 597.630(1); NRS 597.610 is the repair duty and is where the word 'new' appears.
Nevada Revised Statutes, Chapter 597 (Nevada Legislature)
New HampshireN.H. RSA chapter 357-D (presumption at RSA 357-D:3, VII; resale bar at RSA 357-D:12): Days out of service: 30 BUSINESS days; RSA 357-D:2, II defines a business day as one when the manufacturer's authorized dealers' service departments are normally open, and 'A vehicle shall not be deemed out of service if it is available to the consumer for a major part of the day.'
The 3 attempts are narrower than the number suggests: RSA 357-D:3, VIII limits the presumptions 'to 3 attempts at repair evidenced by written examination or repair orders undertaken by the same agent or authorized dealer, unless the consumer shows good cause for taking the vehicle to a different agent or authorized dealer.'
coverageMonths and coverageMiles null because RSA 357-D sets NONE - protection runs on the manufacturer's express warranty term. Do not print a 2-year/24,000-mile figure for New Hampshire.
repairAttemptsSeriousSafety null: no lower repair-attempt count; the concept appears only in the resale ban.
gencourt.state.nh.us returned HTTP 403 to both passes, so RSA 357-D was read from a web.archive.org capture of the official page; the live NH DMV page corroborates the 3 attempts, 30 business days and warranty-term window.
New Hampshire Division of Motor Vehicles - New Motor Vehicle Arbitration Board (Lemon Law)
New JerseyN.J.S.A. 56:12-29 et seq. (rules at N.J.A.C. 13:45A-26); Used Car Lemon Law at N.J.S.A. 56:8-67 et seq. (rules at N.J.A.C. 13:45A-26F): Days out of service: 20 days for a car and 45 days for a MOTOR HOME (13:45A-26.5(a)1ii).
The new-car counts INCLUDE the post-notification attempt: written notice by certified mail may be sent only after two attempts (one for a defect likely to cause death or serious bodily injury) or 20 days out of service, and the manufacturer then has 10 calendar days to cure - 'It is presumed that the manufacturer or its dealer is unable to repair or correct the defect if substantially the same defect continues to exist after the manufacturer has received written notice ... and has had a final opportunity to correct the defect or condition within 10 calendar days after receipt of the notice.'
CONFIDENCE: neither pass could read N.J.S.A. 56:12-33 or 56:12-35 themselves - the NJ Legislature's statute database refused connections. All figures were read verbatim from the Division of Consumer Affairs' official courtesy copy of N.J.A.C. 13:45A-26, which states that the LexisNexis version is the official text and is dated 'Last Revision Date: 4/2/2012'. Later statutory amendments, if any, were not checked.
New Jersey Division of Consumer Affairs - N.J.A.C. 13:45A-26 and 13:45A-26F
New MexicoNMSA 1978, Sections 57-16A-1 to 57-16A-9 (Motor Vehicle Quality Assurance Act; presumption at Section 57-16A-3(C); used vehicles at Section 57-16A-3.1): Days out of service: 30 BUSINESS days - about six calendar weeks: 'in the possession of the manufacturer, its agent or authorized dealer for repair a cumulative total of thirty or more business days ... exclusive of down time for routine maintenance as prescribed by the manufacturer.'
The presumption does not apply 'unless the manufacturer has received prior direct written notification from or on behalf of the consumer and an opportunity to cure the defect alleged.'
coverageMonths 12 is the EARLIER of the express warranty term or one year from original delivery, so a longer factory warranty does not extend it.
coverageMiles null and repairAttemptsSeriousSafety null - both affirmative absences.
12.2.4 NMAC was repealed and replaced effective 9 September 2026; the replacement rule is a large scan that could not be read, so the current disclosure wording may differ. The statutory duties in 57-16A-7 and 57-16A-7.1 are unaffected.
CONFIDENCE: only the verifying pass read the statute; the first was blocked by a CAPTCHA on NMOneSource's JavaScript navigation and a firewall on nmlegis.gov.
New Mexico Compilation Commission - NMSA 1978, Chapter 57, Article 16A
New YorkN.Y. Gen. Bus. Law section 198-a (New Car Lemon Law); Used Car Lemon Law at N.Y. Gen. Bus. Law section 198-b: Days out of service: 30 CALENDAR days for the NEW-car law; the USED-car law uses fifteen days and three repair attempts.
The new-car window is 'during the first eighteen thousand miles of operation or during the period of two years following the date of original delivery ..., whichever is the earlier date'.
repairAttemptsSeriousSafety null: section 198-a sets no lower serious-safety threshold.
New York State Senate (consolidated laws); New York State Attorney General
North CarolinaN.C. Gen. Stat. section 20-351 et seq. (New Motor Vehicles Warranties Act; presumption at section 20-351.5): Days out of service: 20 BUSINESS days, and the window is narrower than 'a 12 month period': 'for a cumulative total of 20 or more business days during any 12-month period of the warranty'.
BOTH prongs are conditioned on notice and a final repair period: the consumer must have 'notified the manufacturer directly in writing of the existence of the nonconformity ... and allowed the manufacturer a reasonable period, not to exceed 15 calendar days, in which to correct' it, unless the manufacturer failed to disclose that requirement in the warranty or owners manual.
24 months / 24,000 miles is the window in which the defect must OCCUR (20-351.3(a)), not a warranty length. Separately, 20-351.2(a): 'Express warranties for a new motor vehicle shall remain in effect at least one year or 12,000 miles.' Do not conflate the two.
The presumption is expressly non-exclusive: 20-351.5(b) lets a consumer prove substantial impairment 'in a manner other than that set forth in subsection (a)'.
The warranty term, the one-year period and the 20-day period are extended for war, strike or natural disaster.
repairAttemptsSeriousSafety null - an affirmative absence: Article 15A has no lower serious-safety threshold.
CONFIDENCE: only the verifying pass read the statute, through Internet Archive snapshots of the official ncleg.gov page at two timestamps that agree exactly, because the live site returns HTTP 403 to automated clients and a Cloudflare block in a browser. Re-confirm on the live URL before publication.
North Carolina Department of Justice (Attorney General), Lemon Law
North DakotaN.D.C.C. sections 51-07-16 through 51-07-22 (presumptions at section 51-07-19): Days out of service: 'at least thirty business days during the warranty term or in a year, whichever is less' - business days, not calendar.
repairAttempts is 4 because the statute says the nonconformity must have been 'subject to repair MORE THAN THREE TIMES' - the fourth attempt triggers it.
Both presumptions are gated on notice: 'The presumption does not apply against a manufacturer unless the manufacturer has received prior direct notification from or on behalf of the consumer and an opportunity to cure the alleged defect.'
The warranty term, the one-year period and the thirty-day period are all extended for war, invasion, strike, fire, flood or other natural disaster.
coverageMiles null and repairAttemptsSeriousSafety null: the chapter sets neither.
These sections carry no official short title - the chapter heading is 'MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS'. 'North Dakota lemon law' is a description, not a statutory name.
North Dakota Legislative Branch - North Dakota Century Code, chapter 51-07
OhioOhio Rev. Code sections 1345.71 to 1345.78 (presumption at section 1345.73; resale at section 1345.76): Days out of service: 30 CALENDAR days.
Ohio has a fourth route this row does not capture: R.C. 1345.73(A)(3), 'There have been eight or more attempts to repair any nonconformity.'
The 1-attempt safety route is not satisfied by one repair alone: after 'at least one attempt to repair a nonconformity that results in a condition that is likely to cause death or serious bodily injury if the vehicle is driven', 'the nonconformity either continues to exist or recurs.'
The window is 'during the period of one year following the date of original delivery or during the first eighteen thousand miles of operation, whichever is earlier' - hence 12 months alongside 18,000 miles.
Ohio Laws and Administrative Rules (Ohio Legislative Service Commission)
OklahomaOkla. Stat. tit. 15, section 901 (presumption at 15 O.S. section 901(D); branding at 15 O.S. section 901.1): Days out of service: 30 BUSINESS days (901(D)(2)).
The presumption is gated: 'In no event shall the presumption described in this subsection apply against a manufacturer unless the manufacturer has received prior direct written notification from or on behalf of the consumer and has had an opportunity to cure the defect alleged.' Subsection (B) also requires the consumer to report the nonconformity 'directly in writing'.
Where the manufacturer runs an FTC-compliant dispute procedure, subsection (F) bars the refund-or-replace remedy for a consumer who has not first used it.
coverageMiles null and repairAttemptsSeriousSafety null: Oklahoma sets neither.
Oklahoma State Senate - Oklahoma Statutes, Title 15
OregonORS 646A.400 to 646A.418 (presumption at ORS 646A.406; branding at ORS 646A.405): Days out of service: 30 CALENDAR days, or 60 calendar days for a motor home.
The 1-attempt safety route still requires a final attempt: for a nonconformity 'likely to cause death or serious bodily injury' the manufacturer need only have repaired it 'at least one time' and made a final attempt (646A.406(1)(c)).
The three-attempt route requires that the manufacturer 'has had an opportunity to cure the defect alleged'.
The window is 'during the two-year period following the date of original delivery ... or during the period ending on the date on which the mileage on the motor vehicle reaches 24,000 miles, whichever period ends first'.
oregonlegislature.gov refused connections during verification, so ORS chapter 646A was read from a web.archive.org capture of that official URL; the Oregon DOJ and DMV pages were fetched live and agree.
Oregon Department of Justice, Consumer Protection - Lemon Law
PennsylvaniaAct of Mar. 28, 1984, P.L. 150, No. 28 (Automobile Lemon Law), 73 P.S. sections 1951-1963 (presumption at section 6; resale at section 10): Days out of service: 30 CALENDAR days, counted for 'any nonconformity' rather than the same one.
The window is the earliest of three: a nonconformity 'which may occur within a period of one year following the actual delivery of the vehicle to the purchaser, within the first 12,000 miles of use or during the term of the warranty, whichever may first occur'.
repairAttemptsSeriousSafety null: the Act sets no lower serious-safety threshold.
legis.state.pa.us refused connections from both passes and the Pennsylvania AG's lemon-law page returned HTTP 403; the act text was read from an Internet Archive capture of the official General Assembly page (May 2024).
Pennsylvania General Assembly - Act of Mar. 28, 1984, P.L. 150, No. 28
Rhode IslandR.I. Gen. Laws section 31-5.2-1 et seq. (presumption at 31-5.2-5; disclosure at 31-5.2-9); used vehicles at chapter 31-5.4: Days out of service: 30 CALENDAR days during the term of protection, after which the manufacturer gets 'one additional opportunity, not to exceed seven (7) calendar days, to cure'.
The term of protection is short: 'one year or fifteen thousand (15,000) miles of use from the date of original delivery of a new motor vehicle to the consumer, whichever comes first' (31-5.2-1(10)).
repairAttemptsSeriousSafety null: chapter 31-5.2 sets no lower serious-safety threshold.
The live RI General Assembly statute server refused every connection during verification, so the official pages were read from Internet Archive captures of those exact URLs. Re-test the links before publishing; the Assembly's indexes use a lowercase '.htm'.
Rhode Island General Assembly - Rhode Island General Laws
South CarolinaS.C. Code Ann. sections 56-28-10 through 56-28-110 (Enforcement of Motor Vehicle Express Warranties; presumption at SECTION 56-28-50): Days out of service: 30 CALENDAR days during the express warranty.
The window is the first twelve months of purchase or the first twelve thousand miles of operation, whichever occurs first (SECTION 56-28-30).
repairAttemptsSeriousSafety null: no lower serious-safety threshold.
Drafting quirk: SECTION 56-28-50(A)(2) states the threshold as 'thirty or more calendar days' but then refers to extending 'the twenty-day period'. The operative threshold is 30.
'South Carolina Lemon Law' is the common label; the chapter heading is 'Enforcement of Motor Vehicle Express Warranties' and no section enacts a short title.
The SC Department of Consumer Affairs pages returned HTTP 403 to both passes; every figure comes from the statute.
South Carolina Legislature - South Carolina Code of Laws, Title 56, Chapter 28
South DakotaSDCL 32-6D-1 to 32-6D-11 (presumption at SDCL 32-6D-5; branding at SDCL 32-6D-9): Days out of service: 30 CALENDAR days, excused only where repair 'could not be performed because of conditions beyond the control of the manufacturer or authorized dealers, such as war, invasion, strike, fire, flood, or other natural disaster.'
Four attempts are not enough alone: SDCL 32-6D-5(1) requires four or more repair attempts on the same condition, at least one during the lemon law rights period, PLUS a final attempt by the manufacturer.
Two windows: coverageMonths/Miles record the 'lemon law rights period' (one year or 12,000 miles, whichever first occurs) and at least one qualifying attempt must fall inside it; the presumption itself is measured over 'twenty-four months following delivery of the vehicle or twenty-four thousand miles, whichever first occurs'.
repairAttemptsSeriousSafety null: no lower serious-safety threshold.
The statuteUrl is the official chapter page but is a JavaScript application that serves no statute text to crawlers; the text was read from the same domain's per-section data endpoint.
South Dakota Legislature - Codified Laws chapter 32-6D; SD Attorney General, Automotive fast facts
TennesseeTenn. Code Ann. sections 55-24-101 to 112: SOURCING: neither pass read the statute from an official Tennessee source. Tennessee publishes its code only through a LexisNexis portal gated behind a Terms and Conditions dialog, which was not accepted, and capitol.tn.gov, publications.tnsosfiles.com and tncourts.gov were blocked or refused connections. The figures come from the Attorney General's Consumer Laws page: a vehicle is a lemon where the 'manufacturer or dealer cannot repair the vehicle after three attempts' or the 'vehicle is out of service for repairs for a total of 30 or more days'.
The 3-vs-4 attempt conflict resolves in favour of 3: the Attorney General states 3 twice, independently. Aggregator sites claiming 4 appear to be importing other states' four-attempt presumptions.
Days out of service: 30 days; the AG does not say calendar or business, and the statute could not be read.
coverageMonths and coverageMiles WITHHELD. The thresholds run 'during the term of protection', defined as the express warranty term or one year following original delivery, whichever comes FIRST - but that was confirmed only against an unofficial reproduction, so no figure is published. Tennessee appears to set no mileage cap. A separate six-month deadline to sue runs from the LATER of warranty expiry or one year after delivery - not the same thing.
isPresumption recorded true, but the statutory verb was cross-checked only against an unofficial reproduction of section 55-24-105, not an official source; the AG's summary states the thresholds as flat conditions.
repairAttemptsSeriousSafety WITHHELD: no official source shows a separate serious-safety threshold and its absence could not be confirmed.
brandingOrDisclosureRule WITHHELD: no official Tennessee source states a resale-disclosure or title-branding rule for a lemon-law repurchase. Department of Revenue notice VTR-59 addresses only out-of-state titles already branded 'lemon law', a different rule.
statuteUrl is deliberately empty: Tennessee publishes no free official statute page, and the AG's deep link into LexisNexis returns no statute text.
Tennessee Attorney General - Consumer Laws page
TexasTex. Occ. Code sections 2301.601-2301.613 (chapter 2301, subchapter M, 'Warranties: Rights of Vehicle Owners'; presumption at section 2301.605): Days out of service: 30 days, excluding 'any period during which the manufacturer or distributor lends the owner a comparable motor vehicle while the owner's vehicle is being repaired by a franchised dealer'. Sec. 2301.605(b) extends any period, days or miles for war, invasion, strike, fire, flood or natural disaster.
Every route requires the attempts 'before the earlier of: (A) the date the express warranty expires; or (B) 24 months or 24,000 miles, whichever occurs first, following the date of original delivery.'
The 2-attempt route applies only where 'the same nonconformity creates a serious safety hazard', defined as 'a life-threatening malfunction or nonconformity that: (A) substantially impedes a person's ability to control or operate a motor vehicle for ordinary use or intended purposes; or (B) creates a substantial risk of fire or explosion.'
A complaint must be filed 'not later than six months after the earliest of' warranty expiration or the 24-month / 24,000-mile marks.
Whether Texas also brands the certificate of title was NOT verified; Transportation Code branding provisions were not read.
'Lemon Law' is TxDMV's public name, not the legislature's caption: searching 'lemon' across chapter 2301 returns zero matches. The statutes.capitol.texas.gov link renders for a human browser but returns a JavaScript shell to a fetcher; raw official text is at tcss.legis.texas.gov/resources/OC/htm/OC.2301.htm.
Texas Statutes (Texas Legislative Council); Texas Department of Motor Vehicles, Texas Lemon Law
UtahUtah Code sections 13-20-1 to 13-20-8 (presumption at section 13-20-5); buyback disclosure at Utah Code section 41-3-408: Days out of service: 30 BUSINESS days: 'out of service to the consumer because of repair for a cumulative total of 30 or more business days during the warranty term or during the one-year period, whichever is earlier'. Do not print it beside calendar-day states without the qualifier.
coverageMiles null: no mileage limit; the window is the express warranty term or one year, whichever is earlier.
repairAttemptsSeriousSafety null: no lower serious-safety threshold.
Whether Utah also stamps the title itself (reported elsewhere as 'MANUFACTURER BUYBACK NONCONFORMING VEHICLE') was NOT verified: dmv.utah.gov and mved.utah.gov sit behind a bot check. Only the section 41-3-408 written-disclosure duty is asserted.
Utah State Legislature - Utah Code title 13 chapter 20 and section 41-3-408
Vermont9 V.S.A. sections 4170-4181 (thresholds at 9 V.S.A. section 4172(g); resale at section 4181): Days out of service: 30 CALENDAR days during the term of the express warranty.
coverageMonths and coverageMiles null because chapter 115 fixes NEITHER; the period is the manufacturer's own express warranty term, and the presumption requires only that 'at least the first repair attempt occurs within the express warranty term'.
There is still a hard outer deadline: 9 V.S.A. 4179(a), 'Any proceedings initiated under this chapter shall be commenced within one year following the expiration of the express warranty term.'
repairAttemptsSeriousSafety null: no lower repair-attempt count, though section 4181 separately bars resale of a vehicle adjudicated to have a serious safety defect.
Vermont DMV - Lemon Law (Vermont Motor Vehicle Arbitration Board)
VirginiaVa. Code section 59.1-207.9 et seq. (Virginia Motor Vehicle Warranty Enforcement Act; thresholds at section 59.1-207.13): Days out of service: 30 CALENDAR days, 'unless such repairs could not be performed because of conditions beyond the control of the manufacturer, its agents or authorized dealers, including war, invasion, strike, fire, flood or other natural disasters.'
coverageMiles null: the Act sets a time-only rights period - 'the period ending 18 months after the date of the original delivery to the consumer of a new motor vehicle' - with no mileage cap.
The 1-attempt threshold applies where 'The nonconformity is a serious safety defect'.
Whether the Virginia DMV applies a brand as administrative practice, absent any statutory requirement, was not verified.
Virginia DMV - Lemon Law
WashingtonRCW 19.118.041 (chapter 19.118 RCW; eligibility period at RCW 19.118.021(6); branding at RCW 19.118.061): Days out of service: 30 CALENDAR days, 'at least fifteen of them during the period of the applicable manufacturer's written warranty'.
isPresumption FALSE: RCW 19.118.041(2) words the thresholds as a deeming rule - attempts 'shall be deemed to have been undertaken' - not a rebuttable presumption. This differs from most states and is a reading of the statutory verb, not a court holding.
Every route must fall 'within the eligibility period', and each requires at least one diagnosis or repair during the coverage of the manufacturer's written warranty.
A fourth route this row does not capture: RCW 19.118.041(2)(d), 'within a twelve-month period, two or more different serious safety defects, each of which have been subject to diagnosis or repair one or more times'.
Different, LONGER thresholds apply to motor homes under RCW 19.118.041(3); these are the non-motor-home figures.
The Attorney General notes a separate 30-month deadline from original retail delivery to request arbitration - not the same as the eligibility period.
Washington State Attorney General - Lemon Law
West VirginiaW. Va. Code section 46A-6A-1 et seq. (New Motor Vehicle Warranties; presumption at section 46A-6A-5): Days out of service: 30 CALENDAR days 'during the term or during the one-year period, whichever is the earlier date'.
BOTH presumptions are gated on notice: section 46A-6A-5(c), the presumption 'applies against a manufacturer only if the manufacturer has received prior written notification from or on behalf of the consumer and has had at least one opportunity to cure the defect alleged.' This matters most for the 1-attempt safety threshold.
The 1-attempt safety route also requires that 'the nonconformity continues to exist' after that repair, for a defect 'likely to cause death or serious bodily injury if the vehicle is driven'.
coverageMonths 12 is a floor for the REPAIR duty and a ceiling for the PRESUMPTION: section 46A-6A-3(a) runs for the express warranty term or one year, 'whichever is the longer period', while the presumption counts repairs 'whichever is the earlier date'.
coverageMiles null: article 6A sets no mileage limit.
Section 46A-6A-8(b) bars suit until the consumer has first used a qualified third-party dispute settlement process where one exists and was timely notified of it in writing.
No West Virginia AG lemon-law page could be reached (HTTP 404 on three paths); every figure comes from the statute.
West Virginia Legislature - West Virginia Code, article 46A-6A
WisconsinWis. Stat. section 218.0171: Days out of service: 30 days; the WisDOT publication does not say calendar or business. A vehicle is 'out of service' if the consumer cannot use it for its intended purpose because it is in the possession of the manufacturer, lessor or an authorized dealer for repair, OR it is in the consumer's possession but unusable because of a defect that SERIOUSLY AFFECTS safety or use and the manufacturer or dealer has already attempted to repair that defect at least twice.
SOURCING: neither pass read the statute. Every attempt to reach docs.legis.wisconsin.gov failed at the network level while other Wisconsin state domains answered normally. All figures come from WisDOT publication BVS2828 (4/2024), corroborated by WisDOT form MV2691. The statuteUrl could not be confirmed to resolve and is published unverified.
isPresumption recorded FALSE because Wisconsin frames the 4-attempts / 30-days test as the definition of a reasonable attempt to repair rather than a rebuttable presumption - but that framing was NOT confirmed against statutory text and should be re-checked before publication.
repairAttemptsSeriousSafety WITHHELD: no lower threshold appears in the WisDOT publication and its absence could not be confirmed.
coverageMonths 12 reflects WisDOT's test - the defect must develop 'during its first year of operation and before the warranty expired' - and coverageMiles is null because no mileage cap appears in the agency source; the statute's own wording was not read.
A separate deadline applies: 'You have 36 months to file a claim, starting from the date of vehicle delivery.' Heavy-duty vehicles over 10,000 lbs GVWR are treated differently.
Wisconsin Department of Transportation - Wisconsin Lemon Law (BVS2828, 4/2024)
WyomingW.S. 40-17-101: Days out of service: 30 BUSINESS days, not calendar days. Rendering it as a bare '30 days' overstates the consumer's position.
repairAttempts is 4 because the statute reads 'more than three (3) times' - the fourth unsuccessful repair triggers the presumption. Sources stating '3 attempts' for Wyoming misread the phrase.
coverageMiles null: the statute sets no mileage limit whatsoever. Secondary sources widely repeat '12,000 miles' for Wyoming; that figure appears nowhere in the statute and was not used.
The 12-month figure is a REPORTING deadline, not a cutoff on the repair duty: 'The necessary repairs shall be made even if the one (1) year period has expired.'
The presumption does not apply 'unless the manufacturer has received prior direct written notification from or on behalf of the consumer and has had a reasonable opportunity to cure the alleged defect' (40-17-101(h)). Subsection (f) also withholds the replace/refund remedy from a consumer who has not exhausted a compliant informal dispute settlement procedure, and (j) extends the periods for war, invasion, act of terror, civil unrest, strike, fire, flood or natural disaster.
repairAttemptsSeriousSafety null: 40-17-101(d) sets a single trigger with no lower serious-safety threshold - a verified absence.
W.S. 40-17-101(d) as printed reads 'if within one (1) year following the original delivery of the motor vehicle to the consumer, whichever is later:' - a dangling drafting artifact with no second alternative. Reported as-is, not interpreted.
Wyoming Attorney General, Consumer Protection and Antitrust Unit - Consumer Education

Reviewed September 15, 2026. Each jurisdiction was read twice, by a researcher and then by a reviewer asked to refute it; a figure neither could confirm is left blank rather than estimated. Kentucky is withheld entirely: no official source could be reached, and an inferred legal threshold is worse than none. A lemon-law buyback shows up on a vehicle you are considering only if the state branded the title — several do not. Check a VIN for reported title brands

After the free check

The free decode confirms the vehicle. The report shows what was reported about it.

Decoding the VIN costs nothing and needs no card. When lemon title check is the reason you are here, the paid report is the document that carries the reported records for that specific VIN — delivered as the original provider PDF.

$14.99 for one vehicle history reportOne-time purchase. No subscription and no automatic renewal. $44.99 for five reports when you are comparing cars.

Free VIN decode, no card needed
Original provider PDF for each VIN
One-time payment, no account needed
Coverage gaps labeled, never hidden

Coverage depends on what each source reported for that VIN, so a clean report is not proof that nothing happened. Every coverage gap is labeled rather than hidden, and you can read the original provider sample before paying.

Run a free VIN check See a real report first Compare report options

Clear answers

Questions about lemon title check.

The short answer comes first. The limits stay visible.

Coverage is part of the answer.A missing result and a clean result are not the same thing.

Does no result mean the vehicle is clear?−

No. “No record returned,” “not covered” and “source unavailable” are different states. A responsible check shows which state applies instead of turning missing data into a clean result.

Is a lemon buyback always a bad purchase?+

What qualifies a car as a lemon?+

How do I know if a car was a lemon law buyback?+

Do dealers have to disclose a lemon buyback?+

Start with the evidence

The next car deserves more than a guess.

Decode the VIN now, confirm the physical vehicle and decide what evidence deserves a closer look.

Run a free VIN check