Equipment contracts; modifying definitions; modifying certain prohibited actions; modifying certain consent requirements. Effective date.
SB 377 updates Oklahoma’s Fair Practices of Equipment Manufacturers, Distributors, Wholesalers and Dealers Act, which governs relationships between equipment suppliers and dealers. The bill revises and expands statutory definitions for terms such as equipment, dealer agreement, single-line dealer, specialty agricultural equipment supplier, inventory, and termination. It also updates references and language throughout the act, including pricing and index-adjustment formulas tied to federal producer price data.
The bill also modifies several supplier restrictions and dealer-protection provisions. It clarifies prohibited coercive practices, adjusts rules on requiring separate facilities or staff for competing product lines, and revises notice, cure, and consent procedures for terminating dealer agreements or approving sales/transfers of dealer businesses or ownership interests. In particular, it sets timelines for supplier responses, provides deemed approval in some circumstances, and preserves or limits certain protections depending on whether the dealer is a single-line dealer or a specialty agricultural equipment supplier. The act becomes effective November 1, 2025.
SB 377 amends multiple sections of Title 15, Section 245 and related provisions, changing the legal framework for equipment franchise and dealership contracts in Oklahoma. It affects manufacturers, suppliers, distributors, wholesalers, dealers, and dealer estates by redefining covered equipment and business relationships, updating termination standards, and altering consent and notice requirements for transfers, ownership changes, and dealership closures. The bill also adjusts indexed dollar thresholds for certain dealer classifications and protections, which may affect how the law applies over time.
The bill appears to have broad legislative support. It passed the Senate unanimously in committee and on third reading, and it passed the House committee unanimously as well. On House third reading it passed by a strong margin, though not unanimously, indicating overall favorable sentiment with some limited opposition.
The main points of contention appear to center on how much protection dealers should receive versus how much flexibility suppliers should retain in managing their dealer networks. The bill’s changes to termination notice, right-to-cure, transfer approval, and the standards for withholding consent could be viewed as strengthening dealer rights, while the special treatment of single-line dealers and specialty agricultural equipment suppliers suggests the Legislature was also trying to preserve supplier discretion in certain market segments. The recorded votes show little overt resistance, but the 8 no votes on House third reading indicate some disagreement with the balance struck by the bill.