Motor vehicles; modifying list of entities requiring licensure; removing certain exception; requiring certain commercially reasonable data security standards; modifying entities not liable for certain actions. Effective date.
SB604 revises Oklahoma’s motor vehicle franchise and licensing laws to expressly include powersports vehicles and powersports dealers in many of the same regulatory provisions that already apply to new motor vehicle dealers, manufacturers, distributors, factory branches, and representatives. It updates statutory definitions for terms such as motor vehicle, powersports vehicle, dealer, manufacturer, distributor, factory, franchise, consumer data, fleet vehicle, and common entity, and it clarifies which entities must be licensed by the Oklahoma New Motor Vehicle Commission. The bill also removes or narrows certain exceptions, including an exception for powersports vehicle dealers in the definition of new motor vehicle dealer, and it expands the licensing framework to cover powersports-related business activities and dealer categories.
A major portion of the bill addresses dealer management system providers and dealer data systems. SB604 creates rules for protected dealer data, requires commercially reasonable data security standards, limits access fees and restrictive contract terms, and bars manufacturers and related entities from imposing unreasonable restrictions on authorized integrators. It also sets out liability and indemnification rules, including provisions requiring authorized integrators and manufacturers/distributors to indemnify dealers in certain data-breach or unlawful-disclosure situations. The bill is designed to give dealers more control over their data and to prevent manufacturers or affiliated entities from using data access as leverage over dealers.
The bill further expands and reorganizes the grounds on which the Oklahoma New Motor Vehicle Commission may deny, suspend, revoke, or fine licensees. It adds or clarifies numerous prohibited practices by factories and dealers, including coercive allocation practices, unfair performance standards, forced facility upgrades, site-control and exclusivity requirements, direct sales to consumers outside the dealer network, proprietary-information disclosure, and certain electric-vehicle-related requirements. It also strengthens dealer protections for warranty and recall reimbursement, loaner and rental compensation, used-vehicle compensation in stop-sale situations, and the right to protest charge-backs and reimbursement disputes before the Commission.
The overall sentiment reflected in the voting history is strongly favorable. The bill passed the Senate committee unanimously, passed the Senate floor by a wide margin, and then passed the House committee unanimously as well. That pattern suggests broad bipartisan support for the measure, or at least little visible opposition in recorded votes.
The main points of contention appear to be the bill’s effect on manufacturer control versus dealer autonomy. The most significant policy disputes are likely over restrictions on factory direct sales, limits on factory-imposed facility and technology requirements, data-sharing and cybersecurity rules for dealer management systems, and the new obligations tied to electric vehicle charging infrastructure and distribution plans. The bill also creates detailed reimbursement and protest procedures that may be viewed by manufacturers as burdensome, while dealers are likely to see them as necessary protections against coercion and unfair compensation practices.
SB604 amends multiple sections of Title 47 governing motor vehicle dealers, powersports dealers, manufacturers, distributors, factory branches, and representatives. It expands the statutory framework to cover powersports vehicles more comprehensively, adds licensing and enforcement provisions, and updates Commission authority over licensing, fines, and discipline. It also creates new statutory rules governing dealer data systems, protected dealer data, authorized integrators, security standards, access restrictions, and indemnification, while adding or clarifying dealer protections related to warranty reimbursement, recall compensation, allocation, facility requirements, and electric vehicle-related obligations.
Recorded votes show strong support for the bill at each stage, with unanimous committee approval in both chambers and a large Senate floor majority. The absence of recorded opposition in committee and the broad floor margin indicate that the bill was generally well received. The available record does not include committee debate transcripts, so the sentiment can be inferred mainly from the voting pattern rather than from detailed discussion.
The bill’s most notable tensions are between dealers and manufacturers/factories. Dealers are likely to support the limits on coercive allocation, mandatory facility upgrades, site-control agreements, direct sales, and data-access restrictions, while manufacturers and affiliated entities may object to the loss of flexibility and increased compliance obligations. Data governance is another likely flashpoint, especially the limits on access fees, the requirement for commercially reasonable security standards, and the indemnity provisions tied to consumer and protected dealer data. Electric vehicle charging station mandates, reimbursement for EV distribution investments, and the detailed warranty/recall compensation rules are also likely to be contested because they shift costs and bargaining power toward dealers.