There is one situation where the dealers' argument that they protect consumers is clearly wrong -- where there is a hot new model. When that happens, the dealers often really jack up the prices. When the Acura NSX first came out (with an MSRP of about $65k) one dealer quoted me $100k.
If all U.S. states had required the required dealer model, Tesla would have gone bankrupt. Acura (Honda) could stand the ill will created by greedy dealers, but a startup with new technology could not. Mazda had a similar experience when the Miata first came out. Fortunately, only a few states require dealers, so Tesla was able to get established.
- - - Updated - - -
@Robert.Boston & @CurtRenz,
What do you think about the Dormant Commerce Clause arguments that Tesla might advance. Haven't seen much on the matter, but it looks to me that TX and NJ are trying to advance the interests of local interest over out of state ones. I have cited often on this, but there is no exact case on point and there are several justices (Scalia and Thomas) that seem to reject the doctrine completely.
There seems to be a tenuous connection between the purpose of the statutes (protecting car buyers) and the reality on the ground.
If you want to investigate this line of thinking, concentrate on the "unreasonable burden" on interstate commerce cases. Most of the cases you will see on cases striking down discrimination against interstate commerce, but there are a few burden on commerce cases:
Edgar v. Mite Corp., 457 U.S. 624, 643 (1982) (struck down procedural barriers tilting the playing field in favor of local target companies in take-over battles); Hunt v. Washington State Apple Advertising Commission, 432 U.S. 333, 352-353 (1977) (statute prohibiting display of apple grades unreasonably burdened apples from Washington): Raymond Motor Transportation, Inc. v. Rice, 434 U.S. 429, 447 (1978) (trucking statute invalidated); Kassel v. Consolidated Freightways Corp., 450 U.S. 662, 668-669 (1981) (same).