Texas Repair-Attempt Presumption (§ 2301.605)

Texas codifies its “reasonable number of repair attempts” thresholds at Tex. Occ. Code § 2301.605. Unlike California’s § 1793.22 — which creates a rebuttable presumption — the Texas statute reads more procedurally: meeting any of the three tests entitles the consumer to seek TxDMV relief, and the manufacturer must affirmatively prove that the defect doesn’t substantially impair use or value.

The three tests under § 2301.605

Test 1 — Four-attempt rule (same defect)

The consumer presumptively meets the “reasonable number of attempts” standard when all of the following are true:

• The same nonconformity has been the subject of four or more repair attempts; AND
• Two of those attempts occurred within the warranty period or 12 months / 12,000 miles after original delivery (whichever first); AND
• At least two more attempts occurred within 12 months or 12,000 miles after the second attempt; AND
• The defect continues to exist after the repair attempts.

Test 2 — Two-attempt rule (serious safety hazard)

The standard is met when:

• The defect is a serious safety hazard likely to cause death or serious injury; AND
• Two or more repair attempts have been made; AND
• One repair attempt occurred within the warranty period or 12 months / 12,000 miles after delivery; AND
• A second repair attempt occurred within 12 months / 12,000 miles after the first.

This is the most powerful avenue for safety-critical defects like brake-system failures, engine stalling, and similar serious issues.

Test 3 — 30-day cumulative out-of-service rule

The standard is met when:

• The vehicle has been out of service for repair for a total of 30 or more days during the term of the warranty; AND
• The 30 days don’t count days unavailable due to reasons beyond the manufacturer’s control (parts strikes, etc.).

The 30-day test does not require multiple attempts for the same defect. Cumulative days out of service across multiple unrelated repair visits all count. This is often the easiest threshold for owners to meet, particularly when parts orders are slow.

Written notice and opportunity to cure

For both the four-attempt and two-attempt safety-hazard rules, § 2301.606(c) requires the consumer to give the manufacturer (not just the dealer) written notice of:

• The vehicle and its VIN;
• The defect;
• The prior repair attempts;
• A demand that the manufacturer either repair the defect, replace the vehicle, or refund the purchase price.

The written notice is a prerequisite to TxDMV jurisdiction over the case. Skipping it is one of the most common ways consumers lose otherwise-strong cases.

The 30-day out-of-service test does not require pre-notice, but sending it anyway costs nothing and preserves your position.

What counts as a “repair attempt”

Tex. Occ. Code § 2301.605(c) defines a repair attempt as a visit to an authorized service facility for a single nonconformity. Importantly:

• “No problem found” visits count. If the dealer logged the visit on a repair order but couldn’t reproduce the symptom, it still counts.
• Multiple symptoms during a single visit can count as multiple attempts for separate nonconformities — but only one attempt per nonconformity per visit.
• Routine maintenance does not count unless the maintenance visit included diagnosis or repair of the lemon-defect symptom.
• Independent-mechanic visits don’t count — repairs must be at an authorized manufacturer dealer (the same rule applies in California and most other states).

What counts as a “serious safety hazard”

The statute doesn’t enumerate specific defects but defines “serious safety hazard” as a life-threatening malfunction or nonconformity that:

• Substantially impedes the consumer’s ability to control or operate the vehicle for ordinary use, OR
• Creates a substantial risk of fire or explosion.

Common defects that qualify:

• Brake-system failures (ABS, parking-brake actuator, brake-pedal feel).
• Engine stalling at highway speeds.
• Steering and suspension defects affecting vehicle control.
• Sudden acceleration or deceleration issues.
• Fire risks (battery, fuel system, electrical).

When the two-attempt rule applies, the timeline to TxDMV relief is materially shorter than for most other defect categories.

What’s NOT a repair attempt for these purposes

• Routine maintenance with no defect diagnosis.
• Independent mechanic repairs.
• Owner-performed work.
• Aftermarket warranty repairs (sometimes excluded; depends on the contract).

The 30-day rule in practice

The 30-day cumulative out-of-service test catches cases where:

• A long parts order kept the vehicle at the dealer for several weeks.
• A single complex repair required multiple multi-day diagnostic holds.
• The vehicle has been in and out of service repeatedly without sustained downtime.

Document each visit’s “in” and “out” dates carefully. Loaner-car agreements and rental receipts are the cleanest evidence. See our documenting evidence guide.

What if you’re close but not over?

Borderline cases happen often. The Texas Lemon Law standard isn’t a rigid math test — TxDMV decides “reasonable number of attempts” based on the totality of facts. Many consumers prevail on three attempts (rather than four) when the defect is severe or the manufacturer’s repair history is documented poorly. Talk to a Texas lemon-law attorney before assuming a borderline case won’t qualify.

Bottom line

Section 2301.605 sets clear numerical thresholds, but each test has procedural requirements that can trip up consumers without legal training. The single most-skipped step is the written notice to the manufacturer required for the four-attempt and safety-hazard tests — without it, the strongest factual case can collapse at TxDMV.

Document carefully, send proper notice, and don’t extend the negotiation indefinitely. The § 2301.606(d) filing deadline — six months after the earliest of warranty expiration, 24 months, or 24,000 miles — is closing while you wait.

Related

Article

The Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act (DTPA) and Lemon Cases

How the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act overlays the Lemon Law — providing treble damages, attorney fees, and a civil-court alternative when TxDMV's remedies aren't enough.

Read → Article

The Texas Lemon Law Statute (Tex. Occ. Code § 2301.601)

Texas's lemon law in detail — what § 2301.601 et seq. requires of manufacturers, who's protected, the six-month filing deadline tied to the 24/24,000 window, and what TxDMV can and can't order.

Read → Article

The Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act in Texas Cases

How the federal Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act applies to Texas lemon-law cases — when it's worth pleading, and how it interacts with the Texas Lemon Law and DTPA.

Read → Article

Texas Lemon Law Statute of Limitations

How long you have to file a Texas lemon-law claim — the TxDMV 6-month filing deadline tied to the 24-month / 24,000-mile window, the 2-year DTPA limit, and the 4-year breach-of-warranty rule.

Read →