Editorial Policy
RockPoint Law publishes legal information for car owners who think they bought a lemon. We take that responsibility seriously. People read these pages while they are deciding whether to fight back against a manufacturer, which means the page they read needs to be accurate, current, and written by someone who actually knows the statute. This editorial policy explains how we get there.
How we research
Every page on this site starts with primary sources. State lemon laws live in state code, federal warranty law lives in the United States Code, and the case law that shapes both lives in court opinions. We read the statute first, then the case law interpreting it, then what our own attorneys have argued in front of state and federal courts in Texas, Florida, New Jersey, New York, and Pennsylvania.
We use Westlaw and Lexis for case research. We use the Federal Trade Commission, state attorney general offices, and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration for consumer-protection context. When a manufacturer issues a technical service bulletin or a recall notice, we pull it from the source — NHTSA's database for recalls, the manufacturer's owner portal for TSBs — not from a summary on someone else's blog.
If our writers cannot verify a claim against a primary source, the claim does not get on the page.
Attorney review
Our legal articles are reviewed by RockPoint attorneys. When an attorney has reviewed a post, the reviewer's name appears on it as Reviewed by [Attorney Name], Esq.
The review is not a skim. The reviewing attorney reads the article line by line against the statute, the case law, and our case files. If a sentence is wrong, the reviewing attorney rewrites it or kicks the page back to the writer.
This is the part most law-firm blogs skip. We do not.
Citation policy
We cite primary sources whenever a primary source exists. That means statutes by code section, court opinions by case name and reporter citation, and federal regulations by Code of Federal Regulations citation. We link the citation to the official source — the state legislature's website for statutes, the court's website or a stable legal database for opinions, ecfr.gov for federal regulations.
For consumer-protection context, we link to the Federal Trade Commission at ftc.gov, the relevant state attorney general's office, or NHTSA at nhtsa.gov. We do not cite AI summaries, Wikipedia, or content farms. If a secondary source is the only place a claim appears, the claim does not appear on the page.
Numbers get the same treatment. A vehicle repair frequency, a settlement range, a case volume — every number has a source the reader can verify.
Update cadence
Lemon law moves. State legislatures amend their statutes, courts issue new opinions, and manufacturers change their warranty terms. Our update schedule reflects that.
Flagship pages — the state lemon-law overviews, the practice-area pages, the homepage — get a full review every six months. State-by-state pages and city pages get reviewed once a year. Blog posts on narrower topics get reviewed every eighteen months, or sooner if the law changes.
When a state amends its lemon-law statute, every page that touches that statute gets updated within thirty days. The same goes for a published appellate decision that changes how a statute applies. The date shown on each article is the date it was last updated.
How to report an error
If something on our site is wrong, tell us. Email [email protected] with the article URL, the sentence or claim you think is wrong, and what you think the correct answer is. You do not have to be a lawyer to send a correction. Several of our better corrections have come from readers who own the exact vehicle the article discusses.
We respond to correction requests within five business days. If the correction is right, we update the article, add a note at the top describing what changed, and update the date shown on the article. If the original was right, we reply and explain why.
We do not silently rewrite history. Material corrections stay flagged on the page so the reader can see what changed.
AI assistance, and where humans take over
We use AI tools — large language models like GPT-4 and Claude — as research aids. They help our writers surface relevant statute sections we might have missed, summarize long court opinions so a human reviewer can read them faster, and check citation formatting. They are not a legal authority, and we do not treat them as a source.
The drafting on this site is done by humans. Every page is written by a person and edited by a person. We do not publish AI-generated text without a line-by-line rewrite by a human writer. A page on this site is a page a human wrote. That is the only way we will publish.
If a page on this site ever appears to contradict that policy, the email above is the fastest way to flag it.
Authors and reviewers
Every article on this site has a byline. The byline names the writer and, where an attorney has reviewed the article, the reviewing attorney. Attorney bios are linked from our Team page.
Talk to us about our content
If you have a question about a page, want to suggest a topic we have not covered, or need to flag something for correction, contact us. For corrections specifically, email [email protected]. For everything else, our regular contact form routes to the right person in our office in Dallas, Miami, Newark, Manhasset, or Philadelphia.
We read every message. We do not respond with form letters.