Has it dawned on anyone?

[NigelM]

I'm not going to try and pick out line by line quotes but I think that there are some misconceptions in the OP's argument:

• Dealership laws in the U.S. are not there to protect consumers. The fact is that those laws are there to protect the dealers (franchisees). Also a fact is that those dealer protection laws are being twisted to try to prevent a new market entry (Tesla) from gaining traction.
• NADA clearly has two motivations, both of which are are (understandably) self-preservation based; they don't want Tesla to become a precedent for the big auto manufacturers to step around the dealership protection laws (let's call those laws what they really are) and they want cars on the road which require a regular, profitable service industry (EVs dont need oil changes...).
• The vast majority of elected officials in the U.S. have one interest - getting re-elected. In >90% of cases the outcome of elections correlates directly to the amount of money raised/spent.* Also note that politicians indulge in mutual protection so donating to one or two political campaigns will get a bill to the floor of any given chamber and (essentially) the politicians vote for each other.

* In 2008 I completed a research analysis for one of the major political parties in Florida looking at election spending from the local board level, through county, state and federal level. The basic conclusion after looking at many different races was, outspend the opponent and you've got a 90% chance of winning.

 

[rcf8000]

I must be missing something here. How is Tesla operating with company owned stores any more of a threat to existing dealers than Tesla operating with franchised stores?

 

[jerry33]

I must be missing something here. How is Tesla operating with company owned stores any more of a threat to existing dealers than Tesla operating with franchised stores?

You are thinking logically, and we're talking about politics.

 

[Johann Koeber]

German here watching all this. Can someone please explain to me:

What is the moral justification of laws to protect dealers? Doesn't any infringement of my freedem rights need justification?

Just wondering.

 

[hcoon2000]

I suspect he does, but you don't.
Have you ever tried to buy a Volt in Texas from a GM dealership?
Most will dissuade you and sell you something else instead, if they even offer them.
Quickest way for Tesla to get fewer sales in Texas would be to start to work through dealers.
And the quickest way for the buying experience to go downhill in Texas would again be for Tesla to start selling through dealerships.
Oh, and the quickest way to get no information, or worse yet, misinformation about Tesla out their would be to have dealership car salesmen providing said information.

Doubt that last one? Go into 3 Texas dealers and ask about the Volt.

Zythryn is right. I have a friend who attempted to get the same quote, which he had in hand from the Ford website, on a Ford Fusion EV from two dealers in the Dallas Area. Both were at least $1500 over the internet quote, while one was over $3000 more. When he asked if he could test drive one both told him "No, we do not have any on the lot." and both directed him to an ICE Fusion which he was not interested in.

I never had a good buying experience at a dealership in Texas. I had a great experience buying my Tesla using a web browser. There was no haggling and I ended up with the best car I have ever driven.

I had a GM Yukon Hybrid. The electrical system failed in the first two weeks I owned it. The electric door locks failed. The engine was completely replaced before 70,000 miles. I spent thousands on maintenance. It was in the shop at least once every nine months for five years because of a check engine light that was a mystery to all who investigated it.

I was an early depositor for the Model S. When it was delayed due to Henrik Fisker's shenanigans at Tesla I received a card from Elon and the marketing team apologizing for the delay. I also got a Model S roadster radio controlled car. I never even got an apology from GM, but they did cash my checks. I am so glad NADA was there for me.

 

[NigelM]

German here watching all this. Can someone please explain to me:

What is the moral justification of laws to protect dealers? Doesn't any infringement of my freedem rights need justification?

Just wondering.

Dealer protection laws are there to prevent big auto manufacturers from selling/granting you a franchise (in which you invest a lot of money) and then undercutting you by selling directly themselves.

 

[constraint]

German here watching all this. Can someone please explain to me:

What is the moral justification of laws to protect dealers? Doesn't any infringement of my freedom rights need justification?

Just wondering.

The moral justification? Dealers give politicians money and they pass laws that protect the money providers but say they are protecting the jobs of the sales people and mechanics of the dealership.

I cringe when i have to walk into a dealer to look at a car. Luckily in MN it is against the law for auto dealers to be open on Sunday (no moral justification but i like it) which gives me an opportunity to walk around the dealers without being pestered by sales people. Dealers provide no benefit because every time i talk with the sales person they treat you like sh** and cram a car with the most expensive options at your face. Then you have to haggle which is just a dance of the sales person walking over to the sales manager to make you think they are fighting for you to get the car at a decent price.

Lately i have been pricing out cars on the internet, and i find that using the build your own options on ford's website to be extremely helpful. The only issue i have is the price they provide on the website is usually 5-10 percent higher then what i would end up paying for it at a dealer. Internet shopping for a car is the future regardless if it is done by Tesla or Ford.

 

[dsm363]

Tesla has obviously woken the tiger. Obviously it was easy enough to see that the other oil industry and also the worlds' competing auto manufacturers were always going to be putting up a fight, but Tesla knew what it was getting itself into with respect to these competitors and by all accounts the playing field and rules were known.

I would strongly suggest that Tesla has likely underestimated the effect that its presence - and more importantly, its marketing plan - would have on some other specific players in this industry, which are the individual dealership principles that exist in countless numbers in each and every single community that exists in the developed world.

Make no mistake this is currently Tesla's biggest threat. Auto dealers make more money than god, and as a combined force fighting for one cause with more voices than you could imagine screaming in every legislators' ear in every constituency in this world they will not go away quietly. They are fighting for their lives right now.

Their fight is not necessarily against electric vehicles - and Tesla would be making a horrific miscalculation if their strategies made this assumption. It is the oil industry and auto manufacturers who have picked that fight. Auto dealers have to protect themselves from being made obsolete from their own product suppliers. If Tesla is allowed to sell directly as Elon is pushing, then their existence will cease to exist almost overnight as other manufacturers will have to be allowed to compete with Tesla in the same manner.

That said - has it dawned on anyone that these dealers who have been complaining to their legislators may have legitimate concerns? It is very easy for us as Tesla supporters to just dismiss their complaints as being unreasonable and unjustified simply on the basis that they're afraid of a competitor walking onto their turf and outperforming them.

I think it could be fatal of Tesla to ignore their concerns and attempt to just ram Elon's Master Plan down their throats.

There are countless auto dealers that pay more taxes than most businesses, pay good wages, and are a big part of the social fabric in every community on the planet. And make no mistake - legislators in North Carolina, New York and Texas do not get elected by ignoring their wage earners, their taxpayers, their communities, and their most powerful constituents in favor for a company that bases itself in California.

These dealers have massive investments in real estate, capital, infrastructure, and people. It would be foolish to think that they are just going to let the Tesla's of the world saddle up to their dinner table and take the food that they have been feeding their families for generation after generation. This is a fight to the death for them.

I've heard posters on this forum or in news articles suggest on ways to circumvent some of these laws - attempt to bypass them through loopholes in delivery processes, ordering processes, definitions of dealerships etc. I've also heard Elon say himself that maybe the company needs to take this on at the federal level.

I think this is a mistake. Legislators will close loopholes if they have to. And forcing things down the states throats through legislation is not going to make this company any friends on the state and community level.

The best approach is to listen to what their concerns are and try to find a real solution. This may even require compromise. But to go around and scream that the legislators are idiots who don't know what they are doing and try to impose your will on them is not going to be a cost-effective solution because its going to have to be done in each and every single jurisdiction that Tesla comes across.

You are right they are fighting for their life (will take decades though) but should we as taxpayers protect them? What about the railroad industry from 100 years ago? What about film camera makers who didn't go digital? What about Mom and Pop hardware stores, shops...etc that are run out of business by Walmart and Best Buy and Home Depot? I agree, business must adapt or go away.

They may do all those wonderful things but that isn't Tesla's fault if they can't adapt. Tesla shouldn't be forced to play in their sandbox if all they want to do is sell a legal product to a customer. In what other industry do we force a distribution sales model like this other than alcohol?

 

[ItsNotAboutTheMoney]

The NADA of Texas outright told Tesla that they can do anything they want, so long as they sold their vehicles out of a dealership. That is not restricting their ability to do business in Texas. What it is doing is forcing Tesla to follow state laws in carrying out their business. Do you understand the difference?

They are rent seekers, companies using legislation to allow them to take a cut of the price of the car. In Texas Tesla has to use an intermediary for everything. If Tesla follows Texas law, it is restricting their ability to do business, because they have reduced profits in every transaction. So Tesla says "We're losing and the customer's losing, the law's an ass, change it" and NADA is actively campaigning against freeing up the market and actively campaigning for laws to strengthen their position.

The sneaky trick of the dealers is that Tesla cannot operate a dealership in Texas. They'd have to franchise. Once they franchise, the franchise has very strong protections of their independence and then Tesla loses all control of pricing, sales and servicing, essentially the whole customer experience. "Follow the law and have absolutely no clue what you're going to end up with!"

Now, the Texas laws don't violate Interstate Commerce, because buyers can still buy out-of-state. What NC legislators are trying to do is more questionable because they're essentially trying to ban out-of-state sales.

Anyway, back to the original point of this thread, which is really about how to counter the argument the dealers are using.

The first one is to say:
- We have stores (but our staff are not on commission so won't pressure buyers)
- We have service centers (but we don't try to use them to make money.). We even have people who will go to your house to fix your car.
- We follow all warranty laws.
We are a local employer. How is our model not protecting consumers? How is our model not benefiting consumers?

The second is to say:
We think competition is good. The franchised dealers can sell competing products from other manufacturers. If their model is better consumers will naturally prefer to buy products from their dealerships and have them serviced at their dealerships. We support their view that manufacturers shouldn't be allowed to compete with their franchise holders, but we prefer not to have franchises at this time.

Third:
- We recognize that elecrric car owners currently avoid fuel taxes. While we believe they have other significant compensatory benefits such as cleaner air, quieter cities and use of local energy resources (through electricity) including renewables, which may also be taxed, we'd be happy to work with legislators to develop a method of alternative road charging based on miles traveled.

 

[Krugerrand]

I’m not sure why you’re directing a hostile tone towards me. I’m going to guess that you’re misinterpreting my position on some level (ie. you think I am disagreeing with your opinions regarding the dealership culture? Maybe you missed some of my comments because I've said I can't stand that culture one iota. Furthermore, I am 100% a Tesla supporter)

I'm not sure why your taking any hostility personal. Unless of course you own a dealership and are in the habit of making the car buying and car servicing experience miserable for the average consumer. In that case, take the hostility personal and know that there isn't a way to get me on your car lot, or sell me your product, or lure me to take a car there for service. Ever. And you should know I tell all my friends not to support that business and provide them with alternative choices.

I didn't miss any of your comments or position on the topic. I just don't happen to agree with the one that suggests as a general consumer and as a supporter of Tesla I should listen to the position of Dealerships and support some altruistic endeavor by Tesla to compromise their business model, especially considering that Tesla already extended the olive branch in Texas and was flatly refused, AND continues to run their stores and conduct business under current state laws by not having franchises, by not having salespeople on their store floors, by not discussing car pricing (where not allowed), by not attempting to sell their cars in their stores. And yet, following state laws isn't good enough for NADA so they begin frivolous court cases wasting taxpayer money, try to influence local councilmen to refuse licenses, and pressure state officials to slyly slip through new legislation to take away a consumer option and shut down Tesla.

You ask too much from Tesla and the consumer. No. Enough is enough.

I understand implicitly the possible outcome of the Dealership model(and the tens of thousands, even hundreds of people directly and indirectly involved in that industry) if Tesla is allowed to carry on with direct sales and manage to achieve their ultimate goal, just as I understood the possible outcome of the record/album industry, and the photography/camera industry, and the newspaper/book industry, and, and, and.

The world is constantly changing and I understand that some people (a lot of people) have a difficult time accepting change. My little contribution to that is that I don't own a cellphone and likely will go to my grave not owning one. IMO, the entire car industry and its related industries are about to transition and be turned on their heads. The business savvy amongst them will adapt and survive. The rest probably should have been culled a long time ago. Indeed, you'll find a lot of people who think we should have let the culling process occur a few years ago in the auto industry.

You know, there was nothing stopping Dealership owners from starting Hybrid/EV only businesses, unless of course they were of the opinion that it was going to merely be a fad (which I'm sure many did). Personally, I'd have segmented off a piece of my lot to put all those cars, then assigned one sales person devoted specifically to the sale of Hybrids/EVs to try and reduce the day to day business conflict and give customers what they wanted. As time passed and I realized that this Hybrid/EV thing was becoming more popular I'd just increase that lot size and assign more sales people.

Manager: "Can I help you, sir?"
Customer: "Yes, I'm interested in looking at one of those new Leaf cars."
Manager: "In that case, you'll want to go to the back and speak to James. He's our Electrical Vehicle expert. He can answer all your questions."
*Manager turns to look at the faces of the three ICE salepeople.*
Manger: "Down Paul, down Julie, down Bob. The customer is interested in one of those new, fandangled thingy mabobs out back." *Everyone rolls their eyes.*
Bob: "I get first dibs on that customer. No way James will sell one of those golf carts."

- - - Updated - - -

Anyway, back to the original point of this thread, which is really about how to counter the argument the dealers are using.

The first one is to say:
- We have stores (but our staff are not on commission so won't pressure buyers)
- We have service centers (but we don't try to use them to make money.). We even have people who will go to your house to fix your car.
- We follow all warranty laws.
We are a local employer. How is our model not protecting consumers? How is our model not benefiting consumers?

The second is to say:
We think competition is good. The franchised dealers can sell competing products from other manufacturers. If their model is better consumers will naturally prefer to buy products from their dealerships and have them serviced at their dealerships. We support their view that manufacturers shouldn't be allowed to compete with their franchise holders, but we prefer not to have franchises at this time.

Third:
- We recognize that elecrric car owners currently avoid fuel taxes. While we believe they have other significant compensatory benefits such as cleaner air, quieter cities and use of local energy resources (through electricity) including renewables, which may also be taxed, we'd be happy to work with legislators to develop a method of alternative road charging based on miles traveled.

+1

I believe that's generally been Tesla's position all along.

 

[nspollution]

Having bought a BMW and a Tesla at the same time, I can confidently say that automotive dealers suck value from the economy, they don't create it.

The sooner the automobile dealership dies, the better off we all will be as car buyers and owners.

 

[carogan]

Everyone.... Please take abreath.

Carogan is 100% on point here. We can all sit in a circle and pat ourselves onthe back that we are going after the big bad dealerships but it will not do theeffort any good. In fact, it will make it easier for the dealerships to paintTesla and it's ravenous fans as carpetbaggers bent on their destruction.

Elon is not stupid. He will evaluate the method of pushback, initially be hurtby the senseless need to devote so much attention to a negative then recoverand go to work understanding the issues at hand. That understanding will be abulk of what Carogan has written. I welcome a view from the dealer's side; Iespecially welcome it from someone that knows the inside and finds it does notagree with his moral compass.

Instead of telling ourselves how right we are, why not use the collectiveintellect of the members on this forum to dissect Carogan's points and try tomodel a successful strategy that is cost effective. CO, I've seen enough ofyour thought process to know you would be of great help here (along withBirch,Dog,,,,,,).

Thank you…

^^^This. Like it or not, most ofthese politicians are bought and paid for. NADA has VERY deep pockets. For themost part, the only coercion the politicians will react to is the threat ofbeing voted out. The money is ineffective if you're gonna lose your seat. Whenlots of folks want Gen 3, they'll be very annoyed if dealerships (which theyhate in spite of the "social fabric" argument which is to me atleast: hysterical) make it difficult to get one.

Thank you…

I think OP has a point. We maynot be able to slay the demon at one shot with a supreme court battle. Howeverconfident we may be, what happens if the ruling is not in Tesla's favor? Thatwill be the end of the fight.

Rather we should plan for a thousand cuts and then when Gen 3 hits the market,with enough grass roots support it will be easier to talk to thepoliticians.

…and thank you.

What I find distressing from some of the other comments on this board is this implication that somehow I am supporting our opponents?!?! I personally want nothing more than to see the complete destruction of the dealership and auto industry as it currently exists.

I know the support is STRONG for Tesla, and that a great many of us have a huge investment in this company either emotionally or financially which has lead to an incredible commitment by its supporters. But don’t let our prodigious need to win blind us from seeing clearlythe reality of things at a given time. There is right and wrong in this world, there is “the way things should be” but unfortunately our world rather tends to run by “the way it is”.

We need to dig deep down and truly define the problem because what I see based on a lot of the comments on here is a lack of understanding of where our opponents are coming from. (I, frankly, have this same problem when I read debates/commentary from people who appear to have this absolute, irrational HATE for EV technology in general as well. Their hate just boggles my mind)

We know the underlying motives of these dealers – which is to be “anti-competitive” and “anti-free market”, but that does not necessarily mean that their face-value arguments on the issues we are facing do not have some merit in the eyes of the people that matter most – which is our legislators and the people who get them in office. We need to define the problem clearly - not just from our point of view, but from our opponents - and then figure out a solution that will be palatable enough to acquire the support we need to win. You cannot overcome an objection if you don't understand what the objection is to begin with.

 

[Larry Chanin]

I suspect he does, but you don't.
Have you ever tried to buy a Volt in Texas from a GM dealership?
Most will dissuade you and sell you something else instead, if they even offer them.
Quickest way for Tesla to get fewer sales in Texas would be to start to work through dealers.
And the quickest way for the buying experience to go downhill in Texas would again be for Tesla to start selling through dealerships.
Oh, and the quickest way to get no information, or worse yet, misinformation about Tesla out their would be to have dealership car salesmen providing said information.

Doubt that last one? Go into 3 Texas dealers and ask about the Volt.

I have a local Florida Chevy dealership to thank for me getting a Model S.

My wife and I went in for a test drive and to learn about a Volt. When we got there the "salesperson" knew less about the car than I did. He didn't even know that he had started the car. He wouldn't let us take the Volt on the highway. Despite all that we liked the car and provided a $1000 deposit. At the time there weren't any production allocations for Florida so we had to wait. One day I get a call from the salesman saying I see you have a PT Cruiser and your order for the Volt matches our demo Volt. We need good used cars, how about you come down and trade-in your Cruiser and take the demo early. It would be a WIN-WIN. I say fine we'll be there. When we got there under false pretenses he wanted $8,000 more than the MSRP.

We asked for our refundable deposit back. Within two weeks I learned that a prototype of the Model S was visiting the Sarasota Yacht Club (thanks to Nigel). We walked in, my wife cried out OMG... I gave the regional manager $5,000. Subsequently we visited a number of Tesla stores. The experience was always enjoyable and social. They were as far from a franchised dealership model as one could imagine.

As Nigel and others point out the franchise laws are not designed to protect consumers. While I can understand that it is wise tactically to understand the dealer's position if you are going to do battle, as a consumer that has had to put up with dubious and outright sleezy practices I am not sure of the wisdom of fashioning some sort of questionable compromise. Listening to Elon in a recent interview apparently Tesla has already tried that to no avail. Better to form grassroots lobby groups with the 90% of the population who feel as I do.

Larry

 

[Krugerrand]

We know the underlying motives of these dealers – which is to be “anti-competitive” and “anti-free market”,

I don't believe those are the underlying motives at all. Those are the ones sitting on top in plain sight that are easy for people to use as the base of their arguments. Greed, manipulation, power. All very compelling, but not the underlying motive.

The real motivation for this group of people (as it is for most things in life) is FEAR. Fear of the unknown. Fear of losing their businesses, their livelihoods, their possessions. Fear of being monetarily poorer. Fear of losing social status. Fear of having to start all over again in another career.

What's *our* real motivation? Fear. Fear of not being heard. Fear of not being free. Fear of an uncertain future for our children and grandchildren on planet that we're destroying. Fear of being manipulated, cheated, used for someone else's benefit.

 

[carogan]

I'm not going to try and pick out line by line quotes but I think that there are some misconceptions in the OP's argument:

• Dealership laws in the U.S. are not there to protect consumers. The fact is that those laws are there to protect the dealers (franchisees). Also a fact is that those dealer protection laws are being twisted to try to prevent a new market entry (Tesla) from gaining traction.

I won't disagree with you on the reality of this. However, there will exist laws that (on the surface) are there to supposedly protect the consumer - and it will be argued by our opponents that the dealer framework must stay in place because they have abided by these requirements as legislated.

We (Tesla supporters) view this idea "dealership protection laws" are being "twisted to try to prevent a new market entry...from gaining traction", but what we are failing to recognize is that there is a reason and intent for these laws to be instituted to begin with - which is that legislators deemed it important to protect the dealership framework.

Tesla supporters want to circumvent these laws on a loophole - by claiming that Tesla never had dealerships to begin with so it isn't violating the law. But Tesla supporters are failing to acknowledge that the intent of those laws - despite how they are written - is clearly to protect the auto industry at the community level. Now if Tesla is allowed to jump in and start selling directly, you're going to get manufacturers screaming about how they've been prevented from carrying out business in this manner for years, and now they have invested large sums of money and forgone lost profits by adhering to these dealer protection laws.

And all the while dealerships themselves are going to argue how they are necessary to remain in place.

We aren't going to win this one by jumping through a loophole, because that loophole will get closed. Guaranteed. You and I can argue how much we despise the dealership structure, but the reality is that there are people that prefer it (for whatever selfish reasons that may be)

• NADA clearly has two motivations, both of which are are (understandably) self-preservation based; they don't want Tesla to become a precedent for the big auto manufacturers to step around the dealership protection laws (let's call those laws what they really are) and they want cars on the road which require a regular, profitable service industry (EVs dont need oil changes...).

I agree that NADA is self-preserving. Servicing of vehicles is not their main business - if dealers didn't have to service vehicles and could just sell cars you'd be amazed at how many would get out of the service business entirely. It is not their major profit center.

• The vast majority of elected officials in the U.S. have one interest - getting re-elected. In >90% of cases the outcome of elections correlates directly to the amount of money raised/spent.* Also note that politicians indulge in mutual protection so donating to one or two political campaigns will get a bill to the floor of any given chamber and (essentially) the politicians vote for each other.

Actually, I thought I was making this point exactly. The problem we need to overcome is that the auto dealers will be some of the largest contributors to politicians in any constituency.


* In 2008 I completed a research analysis for one of the major political parties in Florida looking at election spending from the local board level, through county, state and federal level. The basic conclusion after looking at many different races was, outspend the opponent and you've got a 90% chance of winning. [/QUOTE]

 

[Zythryn]

...
We need to dig deep down and truly define the problem because what I see based on a lot of the comments on here is a lack of understanding of where our opponents are coming from. ...
...

You have stated a number of positions the dealers are taking and arguments they are putting forth.
And people have been addressing those very points.
And now you say we need to understand their points.

I don't quite get it. I agree to best combat the dealers associations desire to twist laws to maintain their monopoly and not have to deal with competition, we need to understand their position.
I believe most people here do understand their positions and arguments, you yourself stated some of these positions and arguments.
And posters have put forth arguments about why those arguments fail the test of logic.
Is there some argument the dealers have that has not been put forth here and discussed?

 

[carogan]

They are rent seekers, companies using legislation to allow them to take a cut of the price of the car. In Texas Tesla has to use an intermediary for everything. If Tesla follows Texas law, it is restricting their ability to do business, because they have reduced profits in every transaction. So Tesla says "We're losing and the customer's losing, the law's an ass, change it" and NADA is actively campaigning against freeing up the market and actively campaigning for laws to strengthen their position.

The sneaky trick of the dealers is that Tesla cannot operate a dealership in Texas. They'd have to franchise. Once they franchise, the franchise has very strong protections of their independence and then Tesla loses all control of pricing, sales and servicing, essentially the whole customer experience. "Follow the law and have absolutely no clue what you're going to end up with!"

Now, the Texas laws don't violate Interstate Commerce, because buyers can still buy out-of-state. What NC legislators are trying to do is more questionable because they're essentially trying to ban out-of-state sales.

Anyway, back to the original point of this thread, which is really about how to counter the argument the dealers are using.

The first one is to say:
- We have stores (but our staff are not on commission so won't pressure buyers)
- We have service centers (but we don't try to use them to make money.). We even have people who will go to your house to fix your car.
- We follow all warranty laws.
We are a local employer. How is our model not protecting consumers? How is our model not benefiting consumers?

The second is to say:
We think competition is good. The franchised dealers can sell competing products from other manufacturers. If their model is better consumers will naturally prefer to buy products from their dealerships and have them serviced at their dealerships. We support their view that manufacturers shouldn't be allowed to compete with their franchise holders, but we prefer not to have franchises at this time.

Third:
- We recognize that elecrric car owners currently avoid fuel taxes. While we believe they have other significant compensatory benefits such as cleaner air, quieter cities and use of local energy resources (through electricity) including renewables, which may also be taxed, we'd be happy to work with legislators to develop a method of alternative road charging based on miles traveled.

But the issue is that at some point our politicians decided that it was important to protect the dealership framework - and it is the intent of these laws which Tesla supporters are failing to recognize.

Every other auto manufacturer may have wanted to market direct to consumer for years - but the laws kept them from doing so. The legislature cannot now just allow a competitor to walk in and start selling directly when they prevented everyone else from doing it. That would be unfair to these other competing manufacturers, but more importantly, also goes against the intent of the dealership protection laws to begin with - which is to protect auto dealers.

You and I may despise the dealership framework, but we need to recognize that there are powers out there that take a different viewpoint. And we are not going to get there by jumping through a loophole in the wording of the law.

 

[brianstorms]

But the issue is that at some point our politicians decided that it was important to protect the dealership framework - and it is the intent of these laws which Tesla supporters are failing to recognize.

Funny how once politicians start receiving "contributions" to their campaigns, they start "deciding" something is important to "protect."

 

[Zythryn]

... we need to recognize that there are powers out there that take a different viewpoint. And we are not going to get there by jumping through a loophole in the wording of the law.

In most of the state laws out there, Tesla is not jumping through a loophole in any way. And there is nothing in most of those laws preventing a manufacturer from selling direct as long as they are not competing with their own dealers.

The exceptions are the new NC law and possibly the Texas law.

The laws (with the exceptions above) are positioned to not allow a manufacturer to sell direct to the public because they don't have the costs involved in a dealership so they would be able to undercut the dealers they have a contract with.

Tesla has no dealerships, so no one is being harmed, there is no one to bring damages or that has standing to sue.

The other manufacturers decided to use the franchisee distribution business model, Tesla is using the direct sales model. Both business models are legal under both state and federal laws.

 

[carogan]

Funny how once politicians start receiving "contributions" to their campaigns, they start "deciding" something is important to "protect."

For sure. And don't underestimate how difficult a problem like this may be to overcome.

I'll give you an example of another company that is having problems getting into a state: the UFC (Ultimate Fighting Championship) and its inability to have the sport of mixed martial arts legalized and regulated in the state of New York.

The UFC has been trying to get mma into New York for decades. Every insider knows that the issue isn't one where legislators have an issue with the sport itself - rather the issue is a political one. The UFC is owned by the Fertitta brothers who own Station City Casinos in Nevada, and they are one of very few casinos whose employees are non-union. The Culinary Union has been fighting to get into their casinos forever. The Culinary Union also has a massive presence in the state of New York.

Every year the bill to legalize mma passes the Senate, but fails to get presented to the House by the chair before the session ends. This happens each and every year. It is common knowledge that the chair is a staunch union supporter.