The first sentence makes to a of sense but the second one seems unrelated to any of the discussion.

Let’s say the rate is high because of how unique their product is, how does that change anything? The repairs should still be recorded correctly (not goodwill) and laws followed accordingly?

The lemon laws were written for the combustion engine days, where hundreds of mechanical components can reasonably add up to an unfixable lemon.

A defunct battery can be swapped. A bad electric motor can be swapped. Sensors can be changed. These are trivial to do on an electric car.

There’s an incredible labour cost to do this kind of swapping on a combusting engine. An engine swap? That takes a highly experienced mechanic for an ICU. Transmission issues are also write offs.

The bar for an electric lemon is much higher.

I really don't understand the logic here. If EVs are so easily repaired, wouldn't that mean that no EV customer or maker would ever be concerned with the concept of a lemon car? No manufacturer would need to do any dancing around the law -- no NDAs, no "goodwill" repairs of warrantied defects, etc.

Personally, I think lemon laws are overall very good for car manufacturers: they give people a sense of comfort regarding the worst-case scenario in purchasing a new car. And that's especially important for cars based on new technologies. But I'd love to see whether there's any empirical support for this.

Agreed, and it may be that swapping out a battery or engine is easy but I don’t want my brand new car in the shop 3-4x a year because my car just stopped working at the grocery store. Especially when wait times for servicing can be protracted. It doesn’t matter if the car runs on hopes and dreams, it needs to be reliable.

The article points out that Tesla seems to only perform these goodwill repairs when the car is still under warranty, but I have no idea how well-sourced that is.