Did you not read that set of statues properly? Because it encompasses far more than that line you quoted. Speaking of which, that line pertains to what I've already explained in previous posts.
I'll explain it to you as it was explained to me by several lawyers including the one I last hired for when I had to start legal proceedings over consumer protection laws.
1) It is illegal, criminally speaking, with a fine involved is a company misrepresents an item with the intent to fraud customers over that misrepresentation. However, the criminal part is hard to prove sometimes.
2) The possible criminal actions in no way have bearing on consumer protections which,
by decree of the law, must by liberally interpreted in favor of the consumer.
3) As a consumer, if I bring suit against a company based off those statutes in good faith, meaning I have given the company the chance to make proper restitution that I accepted, which that last part is key, then the laws are to be liberally applied in my favor.
4) As per the section you quoted, the ones I am bringing suit against can be punished up to 3 times the amount of the damages I have incurred as part of their offenses towards me from the standpoint of the deceptive trade practice act.
5) The damages are what is needed to make me whole as part of the misrepresentation from the company. What are those damages? To provide me with an item that equals or exceeds the advertised item I purchased. If they are unable or unwilling to do that, then the company will be found liable up to 3 times the amount of what it would cost me to get that item elsewhere plus my legal fees and court costs.
So what does all that mean? Nvidia and partners along the chain have to either provide me with a card that equals or exceeds the specs as promised of the original item I bought at the time of purchase. They can either make a new card that matches those specs, or re-engineer my current card to meet those specs with a recall, or provide another card that equals/exceeds those specs. It does not have to be a 980 gtx card used to make me whole, but providing that card WOULD make me whole. It's an option, but not the only option.
The damages would be if I had to find another card that equals or exceeds the specs of the 970 GTX at the time of purchase to what I can purchase at the time of the restitution. As of now, there is only 1 card out on the market that meets or exceeds the original 970 advertised specs which is a GTX 980 card. However, if I have to take Nvidia or Zotac to court, the card on the market that meets or exceeds my card may be something else. At which the court would rule that Nvidia or Zotac (whomever the defendant ends up being), then owes me the cost of the card currently on the market at that time which meets the advertised specs of my product PLUS up to three times that value as punitive damages per that exact line you quoted.
Look I'm doing everything at this point to be reasonable with Nvidia, Zotac, and Saber PC. All one of them has to do is what meets the legal definition under my states laws of making me whole. That is the good faith on my part first at restitution to done by the parties involved. A refund is nothing something that I have to accept as restitution unless there is an identical product on the market I can purchase at the same or lesser price that meets or exceeds the advertised specs of the GTX 970 at the time of my original purchase.
Also I must point out, that the laws specifically state that they are not mutually exclusive with any other consumer protection laws, including federal laws, that also protect me in this case. Nor would any rewards in dealing with those laws change the rewards of the Texas laws should a court ruling be found in my favor.
So I am not claiming that Nvidia owes me a 980 GTX card. I am saying they owe me a card that equals or exceeds the specifications of the gtx 970 as it was advertised to be at the time of my purchase of the card. Or they owe me monetary compensation to purchase a card that equals the advertised specs of the gtx 970 at the time of my purchase. It's a very simple concept. I will be going with what is needed to find legal restitution in this case even if I have to take it to court. Of which this one is easy because I already have a lawyer willing to take this on pro bono at this point because of the ease of winning this case as the evidence for my side is self evident. I just have to do my good faith part first, which I'm doing, before my lawyer can start legal fillings.