Slashdot Mirror


Tesla Motors Sued By Car Dealers

An anonymous reader writes "Car dealers in New York and Massachusetts have filed a lawsuit that seeks to block Tesla from selling its pricey electric vehicles in those states. The dealers say they are defending state franchise laws, which require manufacturers to sell cars through dealers they do not own. Robert O'Koniewski of the Massachusetts State Automobile Dealers Association says, 'Those dealers are investing millions of dollars in their franchises to make sure they comply with their franchise agreements with the manufacturers. Tesla is choosing to ignore the law and then is choosing to play outside that system.'"

32 of 510 comments (clear)

  1. Fuck those greedy bastards. by LeAzzholeChef · · Score: 5, Interesting

    They cant sue under the franchise laws. Because the law is under combustible motors. It never included electric driven vehicles. Therefore this case should be thrown out of court on grounds of greed and control.

    1. Re:Fuck those greedy bastards. by fustakrakich · · Score: 5, Funny

      I don't think I would buy a car from Combustible Motors, but to each his own

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    2. Re:Fuck those greedy bastards. by Nerdfest · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Out of curiosity, what was the original intention of the law? It seems a bit pointless.

    3. Re:Fuck those greedy bastards. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Cue all the idiots with their "yeah but republicans do bad stuff too, so there!"

      No, cue all the people who want a sane discussion with their "Shut the everloving fuck up about the goddamned election you LOST already, this discussion is about a statewide car dealership law in New York, now stop trying to change the subject, you prosecution-complex-suffering asshole".

      So, shut the everloving fuck up.

    4. Re:Fuck those greedy bastards. by jythie · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I really, really hope they loose due to that element. I utterly loath these car dealers, and their 'but we invested money! we should have the law protect us!' argument just doesn't do it for me....

      There are times and places where regulation is useful, but this type of protectionism that forces companies and consumers to go through some cartel of private businesses simply because they got a special law just.. it doesn't do the population any good.

    5. Re:Fuck those greedy bastards. by Lakitu · · Score: 4, Insightful

      are you serious? It's the complete opposite.

      If manufacturers could sell through dealerships they owned, they would own every dealership. The franchise law is supposed to enable locals to own local, small business dealerships and still have an "in" with the major manufacturers. Without it, the major manufacturers would all just be the 800-lb gorillas they are, leveraging their giant corporate size for the benefits of more control.

      It'd be nice if you could spend a moment to actually consider why it might be before complaining, since your argument about political quid pro quo with corporations is actually working against itself here.

    6. Re:Fuck those greedy bastards. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      I really wouldn't have a problem with that. The byzantine system of distributors, dealers, invoice pricing, dealer kickbacks, rebates, dishonest service requirements and everything else that makes car sales so opaque is not something worth defending. Does it really make a dimes worth of difference to me if the local dealership is owned by a guy on the city council (aka, local small businessman) or the corporation?

      I live in a small town and see nothing but the bad side of local ownership. One of the local dealer is so bad that they have refused to do warranted service on cars not purchased locally and had a horrible reputation. Eventually they were threatened by corporate with losing the franchise and improved a little. Eventually the old coot that owned the place retired and passed it on to someone slightly less insane.

      IMO the local ownership creates far more negative local influence than corporate ownership would have.

    7. Re:Fuck those greedy bastards. by Khyber · · Score: 4, Insightful

      No, it only applies to MOTOR VEHICLES which meet certain definitions. One of those definitions is that it must BURN or Combust, by the definitions of fuel in that chapter (60? 61?) and pursuant to definitions further found in chapter 90.

      Electric motors are not even counted, even under the "Alternative Fuel Vehicles" section, because, again, electric cars do not meet the definition of a fuel-burning vehicle.

      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
    8. Re:Fuck those greedy bastards. by CapOblivious2010 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Wait, how can adding mandatory middle-men NOT be at the consumer's expense?

    9. Re:Fuck those greedy bastards. by iCEBaLM · · Score: 4, Insightful

      If manufacturers could sell through dealerships they owned, they would own every dealership.

      Would they?

      Apple has their own stores, but they aren't the only place to buy Apple products.

      And who cares if they were? What's wrong with companies selling their own products retail if they want?

    10. Re:Fuck those greedy bastards. by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 4, Insightful

      "Monopolies don't exist in a free market system."

      Even Adam Smith, who pretty much defined the concept of a free-market "system", disagreed with you. Try reading his book.

      Even 230+ years ago, Smith wrote that a free market could lead to monopolies, and so a reasonable body of antitrust laws would be required to keep everybody playing within the rules.

      "Absolutely free" markets, with no antitrust, is not a recent idea but it is a destructive one. Such a market would either fail or become fascism in short order.

    11. Re:Fuck those greedy bastards. by WaywardGeek · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Since down below there's a bunch of PO-ed Romney supporters bashing Obama rather than talking about Tesla being sued, I find replying to Combustible Motors more on-topic!

      Getting back to TFA, Tesla does not have stores selling Telsa's in those states. Instead, you buy them over the Internet. All Tesla has is showrooms where they can explain their story to people, but they can't sell cars. Tesla believes, and I agree, that this avoids running afoul of dealer franchise laws. Frankly, I don't see how these dealers can explain why it is illegal for people in New York to buy a car over the Internet, or why it is illegal for Tesla to have showrooms in malls. Laws to protect car dealers could only have been sold to state legislatures by used car salesmen. I hope these lawsuits crash and burn.

      --
      Celebrate failure, and then learn from it - Nolan Bushnell
  2. Translation: by Local+ID10T · · Score: 5, Insightful

    "Stop them! They are competing unfairly, by selling a product that will one day make ours obsolete!

    We have engineered a law to protect ourselves from competition, and since we choose not to sell their product, we can use this law to keep them from selling their product either!"

    --
    "You want to know how to help your kids? Leave them the fuck alone." -George Carlin
    1. Re:Translation: by Ostracus · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Is it? I thought it was," we have to obey these government imposed laws, you should too".

      --
      Shai Schticks:"You don't make peace with friends, you make peace with enemies"
    2. Re:Translation: by fafaforza · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You really think this is a petrol engine versus electric thing?

      You don't think this is a "I want to make money as a middleman, and don't want this 'direct to customer' sales model to take off" thing, instead?

    3. Re:Translation: by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Is it? I thought it was," we have to obey these government imposed laws, you should too".

      Except these laws were not "imposed" on the car dealers. The car dealers lobbied and bribed to get these laws passed. They are anti-consumer and anti-free-market. They are a result of sleazy special-interest politics.

    4. Re:Translation: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Except these laws were not "imposed" on the car dealers. The car dealers lobbied and bribed to get these laws passed. They are anti-consumer and anti-free-market. They are a result of sleazy special-interest politics.

      Think it through. You get discounts off MSRP because the franchisee dealers compete with each other. If the manufacturer is also the only dealer, you will see the same price at every dealer; full MSRP. This law is pro-consumer, not anti.

    5. Re:Translation: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Except that consumers actually prefer no-haggle pricing. Many people, including me, find the dealership experience unpleasant. With manufacturers competing with each other vs dealers, it's more likely that each manufacturer will try to give you the best price, or at least appear to do so. With dealers, you just expect to have your wallet pillaged.

    6. Re:Translation: by bmo · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Bullshit.

      The manufacturer could sell the car direct to the customer. They could sell it for the same price as the dealer pays them.

      The dealer is just a middle-man skimming off the top. The dealer offers service too, but independent certified garages could too. This is anti-consumer and anti-independent repair.

      --
      BMO

    7. Re:Translation: by __aaltlg1547 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Nope. Those laws were made for the protection of the franchise contracts, so the manufacturers couldn't make a franchise agreement with a dealer and then establish another franchise within the franchisee's territory or go into direct competition with their franchisees. In the case of a company store opening in an area where there are no dealers for the brand. It's essentially protecting the value of the franchise contract from being undercut by the manufacturer. But if there is no franchise contract covering the territory... who is hurt? Dealers for OTHER BRANDS? Who the hell cares? Those dealers have no contract with Tesla and no interest to protect.

      It sounds like New York and Massachusetts are trying to apply the law outside its scope.

    8. Re:Translation: by Jeremi · · Score: 5, Insightful

      If the manufacturer is also the only dealer, you will see the same price at every dealer; full MSRP.

      ... and then the manufacturers would have to compete against each other on price, and the MSRPs would drop. I don't see a problem there. It's not like there is currently a lot of benefit to the consumer in having every car labelled with an irrelevant MSRP price that only suckers actually pay. Wouldn't it be nicer if the MSRP was actually a reasonable price, and you could just go in and buy a car at that price without haggling for hours? That's how most consumer purchases work, and it makes buying a lot less stressful.

      --


      I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
    9. Re:Translation: by radish · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I'm a consumer. I buy things not because of salespeople but despite them. Buying a car is one of the least pleasant things I ever have to do, and that's entirely because of the salespeople and the dealer model. I would almost certainly buy more new cars (thus boosting the economy and helping to employ more people who actually, you know, make things) if I didn't have to go to a dealer to do it. Just let me browse & compare online, with accurate prices, and pick what I want for delivery. You know, like I do for EVERY OTHER DAMN PRODUCT I BUY. The dealer adds precisely zero value, in fact the dealer removes value, and does so at a high cost to me. Shut em all down.

      --

      ---- Den ene knappen er powerknapp, den andre er Bender voice knapp "Bite My Shiny Metal Ass"

  3. Good! Maybe they strike the stupid laws over this. by ezakimak · · Score: 5, Informative

    The car dealer franchise laws began in California w/Reagan helping a buddy's business. Soon Bush did similar in TX, then lobbyists picked up the ball and rolled it to the other states.
    I can think of no other industry where it's in fact *illegal* for a manufacturer to sell their own product directly to consumers.
    It makes it so that it is no longer a free market. Who knows what options and colors people actually want--dealers order speculatively what they think they can sell, then sell them--people wind up choosing between the existing inventory, usually none having exactly what they want. You'd think on big ticket purchases people would be more picky about getting exactly what they want--but we wind up with millions of same-colored cars on the road anyways.

    Strike down these laws and it should be possible to actually order a vehicle that you customized on a manufacturer's "build-your-own" website--rather than it directing you to a bunch of local dealers that have their heads up their asses and don't actually have one in stock like you just spent 20 minutes configuring.

    Furthermore, right now, if you want to place a custom order, you *have* to do it through a dealer--who is now an unwelcome middleman that *hasn't* made a sale yet thinks they still deserve MSRP markup for merely printing out the paperwork even though you beat a path to their door with no other option.

    I truly hope Tesla wins.

  4. Re:Good! Maybe they strike the stupid laws over th by MickyTheIdiot · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Again.. these people are *not* free marketers. They are opportunists. They are fine with the free market as long as it benifts them. When they are on the losing end they're absolutely fine with the government intervening in every possible way.

  5. Elon Musk made a blog post about all this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    http://www.teslamotors.com/blog/tesla-approach-distributing-and-servicing-cars

    Elon Musk made a blog post about all this legal turmoil last month. Worth a read.

    1. Re:Elon Musk made a blog post about all this by drinkypoo · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I suspect this is Tesla Motors trying to keep the entire supply chain under control (and thereby not allowing third parties to add a little margin on top of the sales price).

      No shit. The question is, what's wrong with that? If you buy a car from them, you're free to resell it, as you own it.

      The real problem with EVs from the perspective of the dealers of gasoline vehicles is that they are sold under an entirely different model. A gasoline vehicle is intended to produce a certain amount of service revenue. An EV is intended to minimize service. We had a bailout because people weren't buying American cars because they were shit. By all accounts they are somewhat better now, which has severely impinged on service revenues. Dealers get the service money and massively pad parts prices in most cases, and the automaker also pads the part prices, which is their prerogative (though sleazy) since they signed the contract for Delphi or Hitachi or JECS or Bosch or whoever to make sixty hojillion fuel injectors or whatever. If you make an EV designed to produce service revenue you can only do it in ways that will make the car unsafe (suspension defects) or ways that will make it look like shit and be immediately detectable even on a good test drive (interior flaws.) So basically, the problem with EVs from the standpoint of the major manufacturers is that they cannot intentionally make some of them pieces of shit in order to differentiate their other products which are made as well as they can make them, and which are still crappy compared to the imported competition. All you have to know about that is that the six-figure Ford GT had typical shitty Ford interior.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  6. Simple Work Around by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    The Tesla "Dealers" are show rooms and advertisements only, you cant test drive, you cant get the keys, They may not even be owned by Tesla at all in some states to get around Franchise laws. BMW does the same thing, as do a lot of non-US car builders. They advertise a trip to some place where the car is built and you then buy the car in Europe.

    In this case they advertise the car in a mall or other location, and then provide you internet access to the Tesla plant to place an order. The show room makes no money and sells no car.

    Ford cant do this because its contracts with dealers would require Ford to pay the dealer if it somehow sold a car in that state. Tesla has no such contract with its advertisers.

    In the end, all sales are done out of California, cars are built there, and shipped to the person, the show room has no additional involvement in the process.

  7. Regulatory capture, crony capitalism by timothy · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Whatever you do, please don't attribute this to actual "capitalism" or "the free market." When people talk about deregulation as a horror, realize this is the kind of horror that the deregulators seek to undo -- complacent vendors with a cozy layer of protection against new entrants.

    Also, consider how much like these state franchise laws resemble gerrymandering district agreements -- both rely on passing in secret -- or at least in relative obscurity, in a process that regular folks rationally stay away from -- agreements to use the force of law to keep things tidy, stable, and predictable (and profitable, for those who've done the manipulating), rather than dynamic, risky, interesting, innovative, and other nice adjectives.

    The laws that give special privileges to state-sanctioned franchise owners are bad, even if they have some small silver linings, whether the franchise is for transportation, banking, legal services, auto sales, gambling, or Dixie cups. Not that their history in the auto industry isn't interesting -- this podcast is enlightening on that topic: http://www.econtalk.org/archives/2009/06/munger_on_franc.html

    --
    jrnl: http://tinyurl.com/c2l8yr / foes: http://tinyurl.com/ckjno5
  8. Re:Good! Maybe they strike the stupid laws over th by purpledinoz · · Score: 5, Insightful

    America is so focused on blaming republicans/democrats, that they don't realize that they both follow the same principal: Laws are for sale. Stop this blame game and wake up. Your government has been taken over by big business, and it is the American people who are getting screwed to ensure that the wealth trickles to the top 0.1%. It's so ironic that America's ideal is to spread democracy, while its own democracy is a corrupted mess.

  9. Dealers are a textbook case of rent-seeking by realinvalidname · · Score: 4, Interesting
  10. Historical problem by Animats · · Score: 5, Informative

    Auto dealer franchise laws reflect a long history of auto manufacturers screwing dealers. Auto dealers were traditionally small businesses with one supplier, which put them firmly under the thumb of the manufacturer. Many dealers still are, although some are big mufti-manufacturer chains.

    After looking at the New York and Massachusetts laws, it's not clear that they prohibit a manufacturer from selling entirely through their own stores. What the laws clearly prohibit is a manufacturer competing with its own dealers. If a manufacturer doesn't have any independent dealers, the law probably doesn't apply. The dealers are trying to stretch the law by arguing that the manufacturer is unfairly competing with their dealership, but that may not work.

    California prohibits a manufacturer from opening a company store within 10 miles of a dealer, so Tesla has no problem there.

  11. Re:Fuck those greedy bastards.. by kqs · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Let me translate that for you:

      "During a recession, things suck. During the worst recession since the Great Depression, things suck more than during a regular recession."

    Bush raised the deficit and grew government during growth years. Obama lowered spending each year he was in office and shrank government during a recession. I know you won't actually look this stuff up; Fox News discourages independent research. But you should.