Because the Song-Beverly Act makes unenforceable any contract provision that waives rights the Act gives consumers, if a manufacturer moves to transfer venue of a Song-Beverly Act claim to a court in another state under a forum selection clause, the manufacturer bears the burden of proving that litigating in a different forum will not diminish the plaintiff’s unwaivable rights. Here, a manufacturer sought to enforce its choice of Indiana as the forum. The trial court erred in not requiring the manufacturer to show that litigation there would not diminish plaintiff’s Song-Beverly Act rights. Because the manufacturer’s limited warranty agreement contained both Indiana choice of law and forum selection clauses, an Indiana court might enforce several provisions of the agreement that would be unenforceable under the Song-Beverly Act. Also, in Indiana, the agreement’s pre-dispute waiver of a jury trial would be enforced, as it would not be in California. It would violate California public policy to require plaintiff to agree to a proposed stipulation to avoid the defective jury trial waiver and other objectionable features of the manufacturer’s limited warranty would be contrary to California public policy because rather than encouraging the manufacturer to revise its limited warranty to conform to California law, it would encourage the manufacturer to continue to include those terms in its limited warranty and enforce them against consumers less savvy than plaintiffs. The manufacturer’s proposed stipulation was also inadequate in preserving only “substantive rights” under California law, leaving the stipulation open to disputes about what is substantive.