Senate Bill 19‑17, introduced to clarify warranty reimbursement and parts pricing under chapter 2301 of the Occupations Code, produced strongly divergent testimony from franchised dealers and vehicle manufacturers.

Author Senator Milton said the bill aims to "address issues through amending chapter 2301 ... to clarify the warranty reimbursement language," including definitions for goodwill repair parts and routine maintenance, a parts formula to mirror labor‑rate calculations, and reimbursement for recalls, over‑the‑air updates and specialty parts.

Dealers and dealer groups told the committee they need clearer statutory parity with retail parts pricing. Anthony Hoke, speaking for franchised power‑sports dealers, said dealers invest in facilities and training and perform warranty and recall repairs that impose similar handling costs as retail work: "We just want a fair price for these parts, the same price that we charge retail customers to help us maintain a profitable and sustainable business for Texans and for our customers."

Manufacturers and their trade associations urged caution, saying the filed bill would permit excessive markups and could increase vehicle costs for consumers. John T. Monford of General Motors opposed the bill as filed, saying in his view the measure would create a "pricing free for all" and allow markups that could reach 100% in some cases; he urged the industry to resolve disputes through franchise agreements rather than legislation. Toyota and the Alliance for Automotive Innovation said they had previously negotiated parts parity concessions in other states and that the Texas debate had broadened beyond agreed parameters, particularly concerning engines, transmissions and electric vehicle batteries.

Both sides told the committee they tried to negotiate a compromise; automakers said they had reached a near agreement that fell apart when dealers proposed additional changes. The committee heard technical testimony on adjudication standards, timelines for reimbursement and evidence standards for meritorious claims, and the author acknowledged ongoing negotiations and a forthcoming committee substitute.

The committee left SB 19‑17 pending.