Dealership Commentator: Tesla's Going To Win In Every State

cartechboy writes Unless you've been in a coma for a while you're aware that many dealer associations have been causing headaches for Tesla in multiple states. The reason? They are scared. Tesla's new, different, and shaking up the ridiculously old way of doing things. But the thing is, Tesla keeps winning. Now Ward's commenter Jim Ziegler, president of Ziegler Supersystems in Atlanta, wrote an opinion piece that basically says Tesla's going to prevail in every state against dealer lawsuits. He says Tesla's basically busy defending what are nuisance suits. This leads to the question of whether there will be some sort of sweeping federal action in Tesla's favor.

Comments

Re:Federal Overreach

[l0ungeb0y]

Yeah, except that a single company shouldn't have to spend a bajillion dollars in order to be able to sell cars without having to kowtow down to dealer cartels. That's why the Federal Government needs to get involved -- no one should have to sell their product through a middleman.

Spot on

[zerofoo]

I buy damn near everything over the internet. I get exactly what I want from a competitive marketplace. Why can't I buy a car to my exact specifications direct from the manufacturer? If Amazon can deliver almost anything to my front door, why can't GM, Ford and Toyota deliver a car to my door?

Re:Spot on

[SJ]

Amazon is a middle-man. You're not buying from a manufacturer.

I'm sure Amazon would be happy to sell you a car. Just make sure you order when they have free-shipping deals on.

Re:Spot on

[voidptr]

In many cases they're specifically prohibited from opening one. Cars must be sold through dealers, and dealers must have an arms-length relationship with the manufacturer and can not simply be the manufacturer or a subsidiary of the manufacturer.

Those laws were basically written because while franchise agreements between dealers and manufacturers protected the dealers from direct manufacturer competition, the dealers believed they weren't strong enough and eventually manufacturers and their brands would become strong enough that manufacturers would find a way around them, or simply wait for the agreement to lapse and refuse to renew with that term, that dealers got them codified into law.

Which puts us back to the original point. The law was intended to protect existing franchises from existing dealers. They never anticipated a new manufacturer showing up who didn't want to sell through dealers. The law should not bind Tesla or any other new manufacturer to a business model GM and Ford designed many decades ago that puts the new entrant at a competitive disadvantage.

Re:Why so much fuss?

[iroll]

They're afraid that a Fiat or a Mitsubishi coming back to the states without a dealer presence will just use a combination of the internet and maybe some Apple Store-style mall showrooms to eat their lunch, shipping the cars out of central depots, and avoiding all of the overhead of traditional dealerships.

Re:Federal Overreach

[gumbi west]

I think you are trying to be ironic and are throwing your hands up. But try to disprove me on this claim: there is no more effective or prolific trust buster than the USG.

Re:Short answer - No.

[Firethorn]

Citation coming up.

Of course, the AC is wrong in most respects.
1. They're not selling 'carbon credits', they're selling ZEV credits(Zero Emissions Vehicle).
2. The price isn't $30k per car, the penalty itself is only $5k per missed ZEV, so logically Tesla has to sell them for less. Maybe $4k each.

It's not small change, but it's only about 5% of the vehicle.

Re:Why so much fuss?

[msauve]

"they SHOULD be required to maintain physical presence where their products are sold so that the customer does not need to be grossly inconvenienced when trying to obtain warranty service"

Why shouldn't the consumer be allowed to decide for themselves what constitutes "gross inconvenience?" Is your mommy government somehow uniquely qualified to do that?