State of Iowa Tells Tesla To Cancel Its Scheduled Test Drives

puddingebola writes: Conflict continues between state governments and Tesla. From the article: "Iowa joined a growing list of states tussling with Tesla Motors' business model when it told the company to cut short three days of test drives earlier this month in West Des Moines. The Iowa Department of Transportation said the test drives were illegal for two reasons: Tesla isn't licensed as an auto dealer in Iowa and state law prohibits carmakers from selling directly to the public." While the article touches on the legal restrictions on selling cars in Iowa, it seems that Tesla was only providing test drives.

Comments

Rent a Tesla for $1

[istartedi]

Rent a Tesla for $1. This is a one-time offer. Limit one per customer. Problem solved.

Re:Rent a Tesla for $1

[Frosty Piss]

Rent a Tesla for $1. This is a one-time offer. Limit one per customer. Problem solved.

I like this idea, but there must be some reason that Tesla is not doing it. Also, I think Tesla should focus on breaking these absurd laws. Tesla has shitloads of cash available from its founder, Tesla should take a "scorched earth" approach and start suing, and take all the way up.

Re:Rent a Tesla for $1

[plopez]

How about "Come to an Educational event intended to raise awareness of the possibilities of electric vehicles". Throw in a few displays of photos of how the technology works and perhaps including a historical perspective on electric vehicles and the problem is solved. No more test drives, but rather "hands on learning demonstrations".

Re:Rent a Tesla for $1

[Anonymous Coward]

You forget that this is a democracy. If the laws are wrong, petulance isn't really the answer.

Re:Rent a Tesla for $1

[istartedi]

That's a good point. Tesla probably has the ability to fight and win outright.

Re:Rent a Tesla for $1

[Dcnjoe60]

While I agree that not allowing the test drives is stupid, the whole dealer thing was to protect the consumer from purchasing a vehicle and not having any support for it. If the dealer requirement is removed so direct sells are allowed, expect an influx of inexpensive vehicles from SE Asia with no means of warranty repair or service. Yes, buyer be ware, but really, is it a good idea for the masses to be purchasing vehicles from Amazon?

Re:Rent a Tesla for $1

[geoskd]

You forget that this is a democracy. If the laws are wrong, petulance isn't really the answer.

We don't live in a democracy, and never have. Until and unless we have a real democracy, "By the people, for the people and of the people" is just a pretty fiction designed to keep the sheeple in line. The only way this will ever change is through aggressive "petulance"

Re:Rent a Tesla for $1

[ShanghaiBill]

Tesla should take a "scorched earth" approach and start suing, and take all the way up.

Properly targeted campaign donations would almost certainly be more cost effective.

Re:Rent a Tesla for $1

[ShanghaiBill]

"If you loved renting it in California, did you know you could buy it here?" is a typical pitch.

I have rented cars hundreds of times. Never once have I receive that, or any other, sales pitch.

Re:Rent a Tesla for $1

[ljw1004]

That will work up until it gets before a judge who's an intelligent human rather than a letter-following law robot...

Re:Rent a Tesla for $1

[ShanghaiBill]

the whole dealer thing was to protect the consumer from purchasing a vehicle and not having any support for it.

Not true. It was to prevent manufacturers from running their own dealerships, which would have, arguably, provided even better service. My experience is that a dealership is the worst place to get your car serviced. Almost any independent mechanic will do a better job for less money.

expect an influx of inexpensive vehicles from SE Asia with no means of warranty repair or service.

... except for the tens of thousands of independent mechanics, garages, and body shops.

is it a good idea for the masses to be purchasing vehicles from Amazon?

Yes. They would likely get a better purchase price, and better quality service than from the existing rigged cartel.

Re:Rent a Tesla for $1

[ArmoredDragon]

The only time I've ever had a rental car was when somebody side swiped my 1996 salvaged title Lexus LS400 that had a lot of miles on it. The rental company would only give me a 2011 Dodge Sebring since the Lexus was only worth (blue book) about $3,000.

Although the interior looked nice as the car was basically brand new, overall it drove like a piece of shit compared to my (much cheaper) Lexus. If they would have thrown such a pitch at me, I would have happily told Dodge how much even their new cars suck hairy ass and balls compared to something Toyota made 15 years earlier.

Re:Rent a Tesla for $1

[khallow]

Also, I think Tesla should focus on breaking these absurd laws.

You have to break them too (or at least get blocked from acting due to the laws) in order to gain standing for any court actions. But it's also worth noting here that states have a great deal of latitude in creating rent seeking arrangements like what car dealers have all over the US. Lawsuits might overturn some of that, but I doubt it'll overturn all of it.

Events like the three days of test rides can be the seed for political and legal campaigns to overturn the present order. I wouldn't be surprised if the test drives and their subsequent cancellation were staged in order to start this process in Iowa.

Re:Rent a Tesla for $1

[Frosty Piss]

Properly targeted campaign donations would almost certainly be more cost effective.

Apparently, they are not doing this or it isn't as effective as the money from local business?

State and local politicians know who elects them, and it ain't Elon Musk.

The courts are the only way for Tesla out of this bullshit.

Re:Rent a Tesla for $1

[Anonymous Coward]

... except for the tens of thousands of independent mechanics, garages, and body shops.

I don't know about your area, but here, warranty work is handled only at a dealership.

Re:Rent a Tesla for $1

[Concerned Onlooker]

"We don't live in a democracy, and never have."

As popular as it is to make this gripe this country was founded on democratic process. It's only somewhat recently that we became an oligarchy.

" The only way this will ever change is through aggressive 'petulance'"

Whatever that is, a better tactic would be to aggressively contribute to Lawrence Lessig's movement.

Re:Rent a Tesla for $1

[Anonymous Coward]

Lobbying might get them an exemption, or a sufficiently narrow loophole. Suing gets them precedent. I wonder which one Musk would rather have.

Re:Rent a Tesla for $1

[Anonymous Coward]

What are you talking about? Please expand. I say and hear maybe 20 words back and forth at rental car places when picking up and dropping off and none of those are related to a sales pitch.

Re:Rent a Tesla for $1

[JDAustin]

Off topic...but yea. The late 90's Lexus' can be had for under 5k and are great buys for cheap cars.

Re:Rent a Tesla for $1

[Dcnjoe60]

the whole dealer thing was to protect the consumer from purchasing a vehicle and not having any support for it.

Not true. It was to prevent manufacturers from running their own dealerships, which would have, arguably, provided even better service. My experience is that a dealership is the worst place to get your car serviced. Almost any independent mechanic will do a better job for less money.

Actually, in the early days, dealers did sell direct. They switched to franchising dealerships because it brought in capital through franchise fees - auto manufacturing being a high capital endeavor. At the time, it allowed the manufacturers to worry about building vehicles and slough off all the rest of the selling of vehicles it involved. Franchises aren't unique to auto manufactures, many if not most retail establishments are franchised. Maybe McDonalds should just sell direct to people, too?

As for the service you mention, I've had good service at dealerships and I have had poor service at dealerships. I've had good service at independent mechanics and I have had poor service. I've had upselling at both, too. There is nothing inherant in a dealership that makes service quality poor or more costly.

expect an influx of inexpensive vehicles from SE Asia with no means of warranty repair or service.

... except for the tens of thousands of independent mechanics, garages, and body shops.

Really, how many mechanics still work on air cooled volkswagens? There are still plenty of them on the road, but if you own one, unless you are lucky, you need to service it yourself. Why would cheap imports be any different? That's not to say you couldn't get one serviced, but it is unlikely that anybody will stock parts, etc. Look at the flood of inexpensive scooters that hit the US market in the last few years. You could even buy them at grocery stores. Now, go try and get one serviced in a timely manner. Having a dealership might not mean it has the best mechanics, but it does mean they have a vested interested in the product sold.

is it a good idea for the masses to be purchasing vehicles from Amazon?

Yes. They would likely get a better purchase price, and better quality service than from the existing rigged cartel.

Price isn't everything, if it were, we would all be driving Yugos. The US Justice Department estimates that 30% of the purchase price of a new vehicle is attributed to the dealer networks and during the recession speculated that eliminating the dealership would allow the extra funds to help support the auto industry. Note, it wasn't assumed that the consumer would see a reduction in price, only a larger profit margin for the manufacturers to help their bottom line. Likewise, purchasing through Amazon or elsewhere does not guarantee a better purchase price. If you believe in capitalism, then only competition does that. Getting rid of the dealer networks effectivley gets rid of the competition, so if anything, there will be higher prices. As for service, Amazon doesn't provide any, you need to go back to the seller. So, if your car is having problems, hopefully you live near a manufacturing plant.

Besides, right now your dealer gets cars by the truckload. What will happen to the price point, when you have to have a car delivered from the factory to your house? Seems, even if the dealer cost savings were used to lower the consumer price of the product, shipping would kill you. Of course, they could have car depots arranged throughout the country and they could even provide service and maintenance there, but that sounds an awful lot like a dealership.

Re:Rent a Tesla for $1

[Anonymous Coward]

Right, but missing the point that dealer service tends to suck.

My Volkswagen comes with three free oil changes and tire rotations. Every time I go into the dealer for that basic service, it takes them a minimum of 2.5 hours. Sure the service is free, but your time isn't.

Once the car is out of warranty, would you still bring it to the dealer or would you take it to a reputable independent shop?

Re:Rent a Tesla for $1

[AK Marc]

I got an Infinity for half the cost of the equivalent Lexus, didn't need a salvaged title to do so, and it worked great until a friend borrowed it and plowed it into a retaining wall at high speed (and walked away from the crash). Had full coverage, but moved on to something cheaper. The Q45a was a great car, but the 1.8l I replaced it with went much farther on the same fuel.

Re:Rent a Tesla for $1

[AK Marc]

As popular as it is to make this gripe this country was founded on democratic process.

Yes, a "democracy" where only rich old white men could vote.

Re:Rent a Tesla for $1

[AK Marc]

That's illegal. If a warranty place is not convenient, you have the right to pay a mechanic to do the work, and collect from the manufacturer for the repair.

Where are you where it's not allowed to get warranty work covered under warranty from a 3rd party? There may be some places in the US where you couldn't claim lack of access to an authorized shop, but that doesn't change your rights and their responsibilities.

Re:Rent a Tesla for $1

[Aighearach]

... except for the tens of thousands of independent mechanics, garages, and body shops.

I don't know about your area, but here, warranty work is handled only at a dealership.

So if there are cars that don't have significant warranty service, but are so much cheaper they can still compete, then there is no problem there. Warranty isn't a free lunch, it is something that a minority of car buyers pay for. (most people buy used cars with no warranty, or buy a new car and keep it past the warranty)

This isn't like a "lemon law" situation where buyers are being "taken for a ride," this is a simple matter of competition where there is no accusation of confusion or fraud.

Re:Rent a Tesla for $1

[Anonymous Coward]

"We don't live in a democracy, and never have."

As popular as it is to make this gripe this country was founded on democratic process. It's only somewhat recently that we became an oligarchy.

I know you mean well, but your statement is specious. The USA was even more of an oligarchy in the 1800s. Easy to study and learn about. "Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it."

The USA is a REPUBLIC. "I pledge allegiance, to the flag, ... and to the REPUBLIC, for which it stands..." A democracy is where We the People would vote on issues. We do not. We vote for senators, representatives, governors, president, etc. They are supposed to represent us.

I fully agree that the USA is increasingly and overwhelming a corporation-controlled oligarchy. I offer the argument that if USA were a true democracy, oligarchy would be very difficult.

Long before psychology was invented the amazingly wise Founding Fathers knew that large groups of people can make very stupid collective decisions. Democracy. Psychologists study "mob mentality", "lynch mobs", etc. That fact coupled with the difficult and long process of collecting everyone's votes in those days inspired the system we now have.

The only thing "democratic" about our system is the voting for representatives. They can do whatever damage they want to after winning election; it's very difficult to fire them (recall, impeach, etc.) and they stay in power too long. They vote their own pay and power increases. They fight each other for power and $. They pander to $ for personal and political gain. Common folk are a problem to be ignored, except in a few rare high press profile cases.

Lessig's movement might fix it if we can get enough people to work together, rather than dozens of splintered efforts...

Re:Rent a Tesla for $1

[PopeRatzo]

As popular as it is to make this gripe this country was founded on democratic process.

No. You could say that our Constitution was designed as a counter-revolutionary reaction to the Articles of Confederation, designed to keep any important decisions out of the hands of ordinary citizens. It's "democratic" in the sense of people being able to vote, but everything from the electoral college to the Senate to the Supreme Court were designed as safeguards against the will of the people.

There were democratic movements in various eras in the US, the most recent being in the decades after WWII when women and blacks both had the right to vote, but everything today is pointing away from "the Will of the People". From our legal system which every year creates millions of adults who cannot vote to the new spate of voter suppression efforts in Red states throughout the country to the recent movement by conservatives to repeal the 17th Amendment, which allows for the direct election of the Senate. Even the recent Citizens United opinion was designed to reduce electoral participation. When it's clear that a handful of the richest donors control the electoral process from school boards all the way up to the Presidency, why bother voting?

Nosirree. We were not founded as a democracy. We've been something other than democratic from the day the Constitution was ratified, not by popular election, but by a group of wealthy white slave-owning men. "Democracy" is a fairy tale we tell school children in the hope that they'll someday enlist in the military and be willing to go die in some foreign hellhole to protect the assets of the wealthy.

Re:Rent a Tesla for $1

[ShanghaiBill]

I don't know about your area, but here, warranty work is handled only at a dealership.

Not for Tesla cars, because there are no Tesla dealerships. There is no reason that warranty work cannot be done by any qualified mechanic.

Re:Rent a Tesla for $1

[ShanghaiBill]

Maybe McDonalds should just sell direct to people, too?

They do. 85% of McDonalds restaurants are franchises. The other 15% are company-operated.

Whether franchising is a good idea or not, there is no reason that it should be a required business practice, either in fast food or automobiles. It is estimated that car dealers add about 8% to the cost of a car. In surveys, a majority of consumers have said they would prefer to buy direct even for NO savings, since they perceive that dealerships add no value whatsoever.

Re:Rent a Tesla for $1

[DNS-and-BIND]

Ah, yes, the familiar left-wing argument. The day that we have a "real democracy" is the day the left-wingers remove our ability to make decisions. Because, you know, none of us voters are qualified to make decisions. It's much better to trust the Socialist Party to make those decisions for us. They're better people, more intelligent, have Ph.D.s. Can you imagine what a nation would look like if the great unwashed made decisions that benefited themselves? Anarchy! Better to live in the "real democracy" - the one that better-qualified people decide we should have.

Re:Rent a Tesla for $1

[Ol Olsoc]

While I agree that not allowing the test drives is stupid, the whole dealer thing was to protect the consumer from purchasing a vehicle and not having any support for it.

Shouldn't this be a +5 funny?

oh......you were serious. my bad.

Re:Rent a Tesla for $1

[Anonymous Coward]

I bet there are similarly inane legal restrictions on what entities are able to rent cars.

Re:Rent a Tesla for $1

[volmtech]

Being this thread is going south, and that is where I'm at, why are you not protesting Florida? I need a photo ID to vote here. Is there any count of how many people do not pay taxes, receive no government assistance, have no permanent mailing address, are completely off the grid yet somehow qualify as a registered voter and manage to get to the polls every two years yet seem to disappear after that. Who are these people?

Re:Rent a Tesla for $1

[sconeu]

7-11 is (or was) the same way. Back when I worked there ('82-'83), there were company stores (that were also used for training) and franchises.

Re:Rent a Tesla for $1

[Trailer Trash]

While I agree that not allowing the test drives is stupid, the whole dealer thing was to protect the consumer from purchasing a vehicle and not having any support for it. If the dealer requirement is removed so direct sells are allowed, expect an influx of inexpensive vehicles from SE Asia with no means of warranty repair or service. Yes, buyer be ware, but really, is it a good idea for the masses to be purchasing vehicles from Amazon?

I just popped in to find the token looney leftist who would inevitably show up to explain that anti-competitive crony "regulation" laws are really there to help the consumer.

Looks like Dcnjoe60 won....

Re:Rent a Tesla for $1

[danbert8]

I agree, claims of voter suppression and racism are bullshit. Is it suppression for all the other things that require ID in the modern world? I hope you never have to fly, buy alcohol, medicine, cash a check, or do anything else either.

As far as us being a democracy, our founding fathers had a healthy fear of it. The direct election of senators for sure messed up the system of government. If we want only representatives elected by the people, just drop the senate altogether. The house already represents the will of the people. The senate was supposed to represent the states, and now it doesn't... It represents the people, but in a horrible proportion unlike the house. In what world does that make sense?

Re:Rent a Tesla for $1

[whoever57]

If they would have thrown such a pitch at me, I would have happily told Dodge how much even their new cars suck hairy ass and balls compared to something Toyota made 15 years earlier.

Dodge don't care what you think because you are (probably) never going to buy a new car. Buying used cars is a much better financial proposition in most (but not all) cases and it's only the cachet of having a new car that keeps people going into the showrooms.

Re:Rent a Tesla for $1

[R3d M3rcury]

Not only that, but you can always take it to a Tesla Service Center.

Re:Rent a Tesla for $1

[v1]

So, we've gone from a society where "only rich old white men could vote" to a society where "only rich old white men can get elected".

This is improvement?

Re:Rent a Tesla for $1

[lgw]

Wait, who's president again? I thought we had taken a break from rich old white men? (You forgot Protestant, BTW.)

Re:Rent a Tesla for $1

[lgw]

My dealer offers "free" loaner cars, so I don't wait. Of course, that's quite an expensive free rental, but it is convenient. "Valet service" is a thing now at some luxury dealerships, too (they come get your car, do the work, bring it back). But that's all only if you're not watching the price.

Re:Rent a Tesla for $1

[PopeRatzo]

Is there any count of how many people do not pay taxes, receive no government assistance, have no permanent mailing address, are completely off the grid yet somehow qualify as a registered voter and manage to get to the polls every two years yet seem to disappear after that. Who are these people?

In fact, there is a count. There have been investigations into voting fraud in every state and at the Federal level by both Republican and Democratic administrations. The number has never been more than a handful.

So to answer your question, "Who are these people"? They are the people who live in your imagination and the imagination of AM radio talk show hosts.

The Voter Fraud Myth:

http://www.newyorker.com/magaz...

Re:Rent a Tesla for $1

[Xicor]

i like this idea, but your signature bothered me. the phrase is 'for all intents and purposes', not 'for all intensive purposes'

Re:Rent a Tesla for $1

[PopeRatzo]

As far as us being a democracy, our founding fathers had a healthy fear of it.

That was my point. The notion that our Founding Fathers wanted anything like Democracy is simply a myth.

but in a horrible proportion unlike the house.

If the House of Representatives is an example of a proper proportion in terms of representing the will of the people, how come there is a large Republican majority even though a half-million more votes were cast for Democrat candidates than for Republicans?

And why would a state need representation other than for the benefit of the governed. Are states, like corporations, people, my friend?

Re:Rent a Tesla for $1

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

Do you have a theory on what grounds Tesla could use to take the matter to court? Pure vexatious litigation isn't going to work against a target of this size, and it's far from obvious that anything is legally out of order with these assorted state bans.

Were the feds to take an interest, it'd be virtually certain that anything congress put out would supersede the state laws under the usual interstate commerce argument; but they haven't, so that isn't relevant for the moment. If they want to go to court, they'll need some argument about why the laws are legally unsound.

Re:Rent a Tesla for $1

[slazzy]

Or they could just start their own "independent" dealers, where they happen to own 99.999% of the shares... I'm sure there are a lot of tricks but they seem to want to bring attention to the issue.

Re:Rent a Tesla for $1

[C0R1D4N]

A lot of places have absurdly high car rental taxes. I had to rent a car at the dallas airport and there was close to 30% tax on it

Re:Rent a Tesla for $1

[volmtech]

So these people who claim they are being disenfranchised are imaginary, that's what I thought.

Re: Rent a Tesla for $1

[Anonymous Coward]

Because democratic voters are concentrated in urban areas. Districts are distributed over all regions so that all regions have representation. This is how it is suppose to work, otherwise you have urban centers calling all the shots and the rights of other regions are ignored. Simple tyranny of the majority and suppression of minority populations.

Re:Rent a Tesla for $1

[suutar]

I've never gotten that pitch in so many words, but when my wife and I rent cars (which is at least 3 times a year) we always call it "test-driving" and we'll choose the specific car based on whether we've tried that model before. (We still tend to prefer Japanese brands, in part because we're used to how Japanese brands do the steering column stalks :)

Re:Rent a Tesla for $1

[Anonymous Coward]

the whole dealer thing was to protect the consumer from purchasing a vehicle and not having any support for it.

Not true. It was to prevent manufacturers from running their own dealerships, which would have, arguably, provided even better service. My experience is that a dealership is the worst place to get your car serviced. Almost any independent mechanic will do a better job for less money.

Actually, in the early days, dealers did sell direct. They switched to franchising dealerships because it brought in capital through franchise fees - auto manufacturing being a high capital endeavor. At the time, it allowed the manufacturers to worry about building vehicles and slough off all the rest of the selling of vehicles it involved. Franchises aren't unique to auto manufactures, many if not most retail establishments are franchised. Maybe McDonalds should just sell direct to people, too?

As for the service you mention, I've had good service at dealerships and I have had poor service at dealerships. I've had good service at independent mechanics and I have had poor service. I've had upselling at both, too. There is nothing inherant in a dealership that makes service quality poor or more costly.

expect an influx of inexpensive vehicles from SE Asia with no means of warranty repair or service.

... except for the tens of thousands of independent mechanics, garages, and body shops.

Really, how many mechanics still work on air cooled volkswagens? There are still plenty of them on the road, but if you own one, unless you are lucky, you need to service it yourself. Why would cheap imports be any different? That's not to say you couldn't get one serviced, but it is unlikely that anybody will stock parts, etc. Look at the flood of inexpensive scooters that hit the US market in the last few years. You could even buy them at grocery stores. Now, go try and get one serviced in a timely manner. Having a dealership might not mean it has the best mechanics, but it does mean they have a vested interested in the product sold.

I'd suspect you could get an air cooled Volkswagen fixed at almost any auto shop and most small engine places. They are simpler than a modern lawnmower. I've driven cheap imports on and off for 30 years. No issues with mechanics working on them.

But why mandate franchises for everyone? Maybe a few people would benefit from a different system. If they are the best option, they'll be most common anyway.

is it a good idea for the masses to be purchasing vehicles from Amazon?

Yes. They would likely get a better purchase price, and better quality service than from the existing rigged cartel.

Price isn't everything, if it were, we would all be driving Yugos. The US Justice Department estimates that 30% of the purchase price of a new vehicle is attributed to the dealer networks and during the recession speculated that eliminating the dealership would allow the extra funds to help support the auto industry. Note, it wasn't assumed that the consumer would see a reduction in price, only a larger profit margin for the manufacturers to help their bottom line. Likewise, purchasing through Amazon or elsewhere does not guarantee a better purchase price. If you believe in capitalism, then only competition does that. Getting rid of the dealer networks effectivley gets rid of the competition, so if anything, there will be higher prices. As for service, Amazon doesn't provide any, you need to go back to the seller. So, if your car is having problems, hopefully you live near a manufacturing plant.

Besides, right now your dealer gets cars by the truckload. What will happen to the price point, when you have to have a car delivered from the factory to your house? Seems, even if the dealer cost savings were used to lower the consumer price of the product, ship

Re:Rent a Tesla for $1

[Anonymous Coward]

Must have been when whites still worked there. That hardly happens anymore. At least in my area.

(Applied there 10 years ago after job posting on front door. Towelhead manager took one look at me, asked if I knew employees don't get stuff 100% free, didn't wait for an answer, and not so politely got my black ass out the door).

Re:Rent a Tesla for $1

[Anonymous Coward]

> There is nothing inherant in a dealership that makes service quality poor or more costly.

There is, the dealership has a monopoly. I need a new key for my Ford Focus. I bought it used and it only came with one key. The only place I can get a second key is from a Ford dealership, and it will cost me more than $250.

(Yes I know about cloned keys, and no that won't work for me because the cloned key has the same ID and I need the car to recognize different drivers.)

Re:Rent a Tesla for $1

[Anonymous Coward]

And it seems to me, that not requiring more embraces the concept of capitalism.

Re:Rent a Tesla for $1

[Urkki]

Buying used cars is a much better financial proposition in most (but not all) cases and it's only the cachet of having a new car that keeps people going into the showrooms.

Well, not really only that. It's a balance. If less people would give value to being the first owner, then either price of new cars would drop (but I don't think there's much margin for it to drop), or price of used cars would go up to match the higher demand.

No doubt the average lifespan of a car would also go up, so there would be a temporary (might last up to a decade if everything else stayed the same, but still temporary) lump in the sales of new cars. Still, after a time these now more popular used cars would be so old that maintaining them would no longer be economically sensible, and sales of new cars would pick up again to replace those.

Also, new cars might not be as tough or as cheap to maintain as the existing old cars (because old crap gets scrapped, there's selection...), but they certainly are better in many ways: quieter, more economical, more silent, safer, better equipped even with the entry level model, etc.

Re:Rent a Tesla for $1

[Andy_R]

Sell dealerships, complete with 1 'demo model', for the price of 1 car.

Re:Rent a Tesla for $1

[Joce640k]

State and local politicians know who elects them, and it ain't Elon Musk.

They also know they aren't going to personally foot the bill for the legal defense. The taxpayer will do that for them!

Re:Rent a Tesla for $1

[markass530]

Do you really not understand the difference between "all those other things" and voting?

http://www.palmbeachpost.com/n...

Re:Rent a Tesla for $1

[Kijori]

I agree, claims of voter suppression and racism are bullshit. Is it suppression for all the other things that require ID in the modern world? I hope you never have to fly, buy alcohol, medicine, cash a check, or do anything else either.

I think that the point is that:
1. Black, hispanic and asian voters are significantly less likely to possess ID that is sufficient to meet the requirements of the laws. They are also less likely already to be registered to vote.
2. Election fraud is rare, and in-person fraud (the only type that could be prevented by these laws) is vanishingly rare.
3. These laws are being passed by Republican legislatures. Statistically, reducing the number of black, asian and hispanic voters is likely to improve their results in elections.

So what you have is a measure that claims to prevent a problem that doesn't exist, and, coincidentally, will make it harder for the party's opponents to vote.

I don't actually believe that that is a coincidence. I don't know whether it is racist or not, but I do think that elections should be fought by trying to convince the electorate that you are the best candidate, not by changing the procedure to make it harder for your opponents to vote.

Re:Rent a Tesla for $1

[Dcnjoe60]

Maybe McDonalds should just sell direct to people, too?

They do. 85% of McDonalds restaurants are franchises. The other 15% are company-operated.

Whether franchising is a good idea or not, there is no reason that it should be a required business practice, either in fast food or automobiles. It is estimated that car dealers add about 8% to the cost of a car. In surveys, a majority of consumers have said they would prefer to buy direct even for NO savings, since they perceive that dealerships add no value whatsoever.

If you re-read my post, you will see I point that out. However, whether the dealership is owned by GM or franchised doesn't make a difference. It is still a retail outlet to purchase the vehicle with all of the same problems. It simply is not practical to build a car in Detroit and send them one by one across the country to people's houses. The franchise is not part of the problem anymore than the hardware store or appliance store is part of the problem. An efficient distribution system requires such outlets.

But why stop with cars, why not have all goods purchased direct from the factory? If nothing else, the trucking industry will profit.

Re:Rent a Tesla for $1

[Dcnjoe60]

While I agree that not allowing the test drives is stupid, the whole dealer thing was to protect the consumer from purchasing a vehicle and not having any support for it.

Shouldn't this be a +5 funny?

oh......you were serious. my bad.

A little research would tell you that in the early days of the automobile industry, there were 100s of manufactures who would sell their vehicle by mail order and it would arrive by train. However, once this very expensive piece of machinery was in the hands of the consumer, there was no way to solve problems. In addition, many of the manufacturers didn't last very long and the consumer was stuck with a vehicle that couldn't be serviced or repaired. So laws were enacted to protect consumers, including required dealerships.

Re:Rent a Tesla for $1

[Dcnjoe60]

While I agree that not allowing the test drives is stupid, the whole dealer thing was to protect the consumer from purchasing a vehicle and not having any support for it. If the dealer requirement is removed so direct sells are allowed, expect an influx of inexpensive vehicles from SE Asia with no means of warranty repair or service. Yes, buyer be ware, but really, is it a good idea for the masses to be purchasing vehicles from Amazon?

I just popped in to find the token looney leftist who would inevitably show up to explain that anti-competitive crony "regulation" laws are really there to help the consumer.

Looks like Dcnjoe60 won....

Sticks and stones....

It would seem that selling the right to sell your product is the epitomy of capitalism, is it not? Even Tesla, could comply with the franchise laws by creating a separate company, wholly owned by them and sell the franchises for $1 each.

But again, why is it only automobile franchises that are the problem and not all fast food and retail franchises that are anti-competitive?

Re:Rent a Tesla for $1

[drinkypoo]

Really, how many mechanics still work on air cooled volkswagens?

There are mechanics everywhere who will work on an air-cooled VW. Probably everywhere in the world that they have cars, more or less. However, shops are another story. You don't need a shop to work on an air-cooled VW. You do, however, have to get connected with whoever actually works on them. Mostly you will want to start at the crustiest auto parts store you can find; in my town that's a Napa, they finally closed the ancient Auto Value — first it became a Napa, then it merged with the Napa and brought their bitchin' parts bins with them with the really old keys, studs, worm screws etc.

So yeah, you're going to have a hard time finding a shop that will work on your VW. Hell, some euro shops don't want to dick with the old Mercedes diesels any more because the guys who knew how to work on them have retired, and they have none of the specialized tools. There are not so many of them, but they are mandatory.

The story is pretty much the same for those cheap Chinese scooters and ATVs. You can't take them to the dealer, since there is no dealer. But anywhere those things are prevalent, there's a bunch of guys who know all about them. They are almost without exception clones of something Japanese, and parts are readily available if you know what to buy. You find someone who knows what they're doing through the local Motorcycle and ATV shop, but probably not at it. They won't want to mess with your POS, in all likelihood, but they'll know who will.

Re:Rent a Tesla for $1

[drinkypoo]

However, once this very expensive piece of machinery was in the hands of the consumer, there was no way to solve problems.

You went to a mechanic who took the car apart and figured out how to fix it, perhaps going to a machinist to replicate some parts, and most likely doing any other metalworking themselves. Cars were simple things in the early days. Some of the transmissions were a bit of a mess, but you could buy spares ahead of time for the parts which wore or which were likely to break — with a little foresight.

Re:Rent a Tesla for $1

[mark.steffen]

As a lifelong Iowa resident and a Chevy Volt owner that really wants to move up to a Tesla, I am disappointed by the laws my State has on the books with respect to this matter. I am all for addressing this through the judicial system. I am also writing my state senators and representatives urging them to repeal the laws that restrict Tesla from selling vehicles in Iowa with its current business model. I would urge allow Iowa citizens who support fair completion, less pollution and reducing the amount of fossil fuels used in our transportation system to contact their Iowa lawmakers and urge them to repeal these statutes.

Re:Rent a Tesla for $1

[PopeRatzo]

So these people who claim they are being disenfranchised are imaginary, that's what I thought.

And they all told me you wouldn't understand...

Re:Rent a Tesla for $1

[Ol Olsoc]

A little research would tell you that in the early days of the automobile industry, there were 100s of manufactures who would sell their vehicle by mail order and it would arrive by train. However, once this very expensive piece of machinery was in the hands of the consumer, there was no way to solve problems. In addition, many of the manufacturers didn't last very long and the consumer was stuck with a vehicle that couldn't be serviced or repaired. So laws were enacted to protect consumers, including required dealerships.

And if it had only worked.

I buy new cars, and unless it is a warranty replacement item where I have to go to a dealership, they are the absolute last place I ever take a vehicle, overpriced, and completely untrustworthy. And when I do have to go there, I watch them like a hawk.

There is a reason that they are at the bottom of the teast trusted professions below even congressmen! They earned that lack of trust one customer at a time.

So I'm not certain I'd defend car dealerships protectionist racket too much. Tesla might be on more than just electric cars, they might be on a more ethical warranty/repair paradigm.

Re:Rent a Tesla for $1

[fulldecent]

> But really, is it a good idea for the masses to be purchasing vehicles from Amazon?

The Amazon star system has effectively solved the post-product support problem for big brands.

Re:Rent a Tesla for $1

[Khyber]

"Do you have a theory on what grounds Tesla could use to take the matter to court?"

This is an interstate commerce issue and thus Tesla has the right to sue the fuck out of the states for violating that.

Done, easily provable, absolutely indefensible in the courtroom.

The states will fall in this legal battle. They hung themselves with this, and since there is record of it happening in a lot of states, Tesla is going to win.

I won't be surprised to see car dealerships getting named in the lawsuit, either. Tesla will win against them on illegal restraint of trade. Tesla will bring out every bit of campaign 'donation' and make the case that these states were bought out, bribed, and then go into RICO lawsuits.

Tesla's going to win. Any angle they take, there's evidence in spades to support their case and absolutely demolish the other side.

Re:Rent a Tesla for $1

[Khyber]

"You have to break them too (or at least get blocked from acting due to the laws) in order to gain standing for any court actions."

Just drop it in federal court for the states violating the Federal Government's right to control interstate commerce, thus causing Tesla damages.

Done, provable, evidence in spades. RICO lawsuits to follow against car dealerships after that ruling.

And I'll guarantee you Tesla won't settle. They'll end this shit once and for all.

Re:Rent a Tesla for $1

[Punctuated_Equilibri]

Depends on where you draw your baseline. If your baseline is a hypothetical perfect democracy that has never existed, the USA is in negative territory democracy-wise.

If your baseline is North Korea, the USA is robust functioning real-world democracy.

Re:Rent a Tesla for $1

[Dcnjoe60]

A little research would tell you that in the early days of the automobile industry, there were 100s of manufactures who would sell their vehicle by mail order and it would arrive by train. However, once this very expensive piece of machinery was in the hands of the consumer, there was no way to solve problems. In addition, many of the manufacturers didn't last very long and the consumer was stuck with a vehicle that couldn't be serviced or repaired. So laws were enacted to protect consumers, including required dealerships.

And if it had only worked.

I buy new cars, and unless it is a warranty replacement item where I have to go to a dealership, they are the absolute last place I ever take a vehicle, overpriced, and completely untrustworthy. And when I do have to go there, I watch them like a hawk.

There is a reason that they are at the bottom of the teast trusted professions below even congressmen! They earned that lack of trust one customer at a time.

So I'm not certain I'd defend car dealerships protectionist racket too much. Tesla might be on more than just electric cars, they might be on a more ethical warranty/repair paradigm.

Do you think if the manufacturers owned the dealerships directly, it would change the support? Do you think it would stimulate competition? In otherwords, is the franchise system the problem or the shoddy ethics of the people working there? Obviously, the manufacturers are aware of the opinion of their franchise dealers and don't do anything about it. Why would anyone think that having the dealer directly own the dealership make any difference?

Re:Rent a Tesla for $1

[khallow]

Just drop it in federal court for the states violating the Federal Government's right to control interstate commerce, thus causing Tesla damages.

Except that the federal government doesn't have any such "right". At best, the federal government has the legal authority to regulate interstate commerce, but not necessarily intrastate commerce, like Iowa's regulation of car dealerships. You have to show violation first. And I don't buy that is actually happening here.

One can always make a sufficiently adventurous court decision, but that approach has a lot of blowback, more likely to cause trouble than to fix it especially once the adventurers start dealing with the inconvenient laws that help keep US citizens mostly free. The commerce clause in particular is a far too flexible means as it is of doing whatever the central government wants at the expense of everyone else. You don't really want a court to run with that just to break the power of Iowan car dealerships.

Re:Rent a Tesla for $1

[Anonymous Coward]

courts determine whether an existing law is broken or not. they don't have the power to change laws.

Re:Rent a Tesla for $1

[jader3rd]

It represents the people, but in a horrible proportion unlike the house. In what world does that make sense?

The Senate makes sense in this http://www.thisamericanlife.or... world (summary: a city where the majority of the people want to send their children to private school, so they actively sabotage the public school system).

For a law to get passed the majority of people have to agree upon it (the House), and the majority of different kinds of people have to agree upon it (the Senate). So what the Senate does is protect the minority. Ideally there might be some way to repurpose the Senate to be based on race or socio-economic situation, but I don't now how realistic that would be to implement. So the Senate is based on geographic location. Texans are different than Californians which are different than New Jersians, etc. I realize it's not ideal for every possible representation for every "kind" of person, but it is something.

In the first few decades after the American Revolution, there were some bad examples of a 51% majority abusing the 49% minority. So the idea of a bicameral legislation was created to be a forcing function to prevent the current 51% majority from creating abusive laws.

Re:Rent a Tesla for $1

[macpacheco]

Not the right time.
Last I heard, Tesla was production limited, not demand constrained.
They weren't doing any active ($$$) advertisement to avoid driving up delivery delays, keep customers happy.
What I really mean is Tesla probably don't need to start a lawsuit war.
All they need to do is in the right moment start an advertisement war against car dealerships, initially with targetted ads in states that are blocking Tesla sales, eventually moving towards national ads.
This will drive consumers (voters) against their own legislature.
But this only makes sense when Tesla is able to double their production very quickly. Since demand is very likely to skyrocket.
And it makes sense to have the Model X and Model 3 in production. So not before 2017, when the Giga factory comes online.
An alternate means is to pickup customers in one state and drive them to a neighboring Tesla friendly state for the test drive.
Politicians aren't stupid. Tesla have won many of this fights. Tesla isn't going to play to loose when they decide to bring in the big guns.

Re: Rent a Tesla for $1

[Anonymous Coward]

This reminds me of how doctors attorneys were at one time prohibited from advertising on TV, radio, etc; a law firm called Jacoby & Meyers wanted to provide low-cost, low - hassle legal services and to advertise their services in all available media. They sued, won, and even tally became as high priced as all the rest, but their legacy survives.

Tesla is robust; logic and common sense are on their side; they will prevail! Vive le roi!

Not anonymous-- Bill Dale in Los Angeles

Re:Rent a Tesla for $1

[Shirley Marquez]

They would end up having to charge more than $1, but Tesla could partner with existing rental companies to place some Teslas in key markets. An especially appealing model would be to get by-the-hour rental companies like Zipcar to offer them.

Re: Rent a Tesla for $1

[Anonymous Coward]

20 words is a lot! Get an Avis Preferred card and you won't even have to talk to the clerk. With those cards renting a car is like being a marathon runner that grabs a glass of water from a volunteer without even slowing down.

Re:Rent a Tesla for $1

[Ol Olsoc]

Do you think if the manufacturers owned the dealerships directly, it would change the support?

The question is difficult to answer posed in that manner.

Its a matter of trying to separate hte present manufacturers form the present system.

In other words, GM with it's ignition lock issues and Ford with it's Pinto fires. WIth Toyota with it's accelration issues and Audi with it's criminally designed throttle control, Would they act differently?

I dunno. It certainly would remove a buffer between the owners of the cars, and the companies that decide how many people need to die before paying the deceased's families exceed t costs of paying to fix the problem.

ANd I must say this. With a direct line to Tesla, I have a lot more reason to trust them that dealerships who have a track record of anythhing but trust being appropriate. Some times I think I need a lawyer just to get warranty work done.

Do you think it would stimulate competition?

You tell me. Do you think these people fighting Tesla would do so if Tesla made shitty cars? Hell no. They are doing it because Tesla is a very viable choice for th ehigh end market. Tesls is using a different paradigm, and the old school has decided that they can't beat them, so outlaw them.

It's just like when Indy Racing banned turbine cars. They were better than any piston engine - so ban them.

In otherwords, is the franchise system the problem or the shoddy ethics of the people working there?

As I noted above, companies who compare payouts to deceased relatives to money saved compared to fixing problems might have as bad ethics as th epeople working for them.

How much are you willing to accept for your families demise? Hell that's even creepy to write. But it's proven that is how they think.

Obviously, the manufacturers are aware of the opinion of their franchise dealers and don't do anything about it. Why would anyone think that having the dealer directly own the dealership make any difference?

Tesla , at least in it's present form, is different. I can't say anything for the future, but in one case of a car fire, they redesigned the undercarriage. This would not happen in a regular conventional auto company.

Re:Rent a Tesla for $1

[i.kazmi]

Some more Iowa Laws for you:

1. You may shoot Native Americans if more than five of them are on your property.
2. Kisses may last for no more than five minutes.
3. A man with a mustache may never kiss a woman in public.
4. It is illegal to hunt from an aircraft.
5. The fire department is required to practice fire fighting for fifteen minutes before attending a fire.
6. Horses are forbidden to eat fire hydrants.
7. One must obtain written permission from the City Council before throwing bricks onto a highway.

Re:Rent a Tesla for $1

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

If congress felt like passing a law regulating the matter, the interstate commerce clause would allow them to roll over the various state laws quite trivially(it's a very, very, elastic clause in general, and this would actually be pretty close to its intended use...); but 'Congress shall have the power' is not the same as 'Congress must exercise the power' to regulate interstate commerce.

Should a conflict arise, the states would be toast on this one; but it hasn't, yet.

Re: Rent a Tesla for $1

[Martin Blank]

Franchise opportunities have to be open to anyone (with geographical restrictions in some states), and it's my understanding that auto manufacturers may not have an interest (or at least a controlling interest) in any entity that owns a dealership that sells their vehicles.

Re:Rent a Tesla for $1

[JimFive]

In order to rent the vehicle it would have to be registered (have a license plate) and would no longer be able to be sold as new. The real issue with the "test drive" event is that in Iowa only dealers can have unregistered vehicles on the road. I suspect this is true in many/most states.

Re:Rent a Tesla for $1

[PopeRatzo]

So what the Senate does is protect the minority.

Yes. They protect the minority all right. We refer to them as "the 1%". And they'e doing a bang up job, too, representing that minority.

Re:Rent a Tesla for $1

[PopeRatzo]

If your baseline is North Korea...

I'm curious. Why would anyone use the baseline of North Korea? Are they in any way representative? They are probably the nation in the world least like other nations in the world.

I'm not exactly certain of the point you were trying to make, but suggesting that North Korea should be some sort of representative for the state of the developed world is a little bit loony.

Wouldn't it be more reasonable to use other countries that are similar to the US as a metric to measure how well we're doing, as you say, "democracy-wise"?

We could start by looking at voter turnouts in other developed nations. Yeah, we're in negative territory there. How about income equality? Well... not so good there. How about social mobility? Education? Health of the population? Mental health of the population? Violent crime? Incarceration levels?

Maybe you're right. Maybe comparing ourselves to North Korea is the only way we can look good, because we sure as hell don't look so good compared to the other developed nations of the world.

Re:Rent a Tesla for $1

[toddestan]

Quite the opposite. A lot of rental cars are fleet-only affairs that you couldn't even buy if you wanted to. Well, not until the fleet owners dump them and they hit the used market. Current examples would be the Chevy Impala, which got redesigned for 2014, but the previous generation is still being manufactured for fleets only as the "Impala Classic" (*). Another example is the Chevy Captiva, which is a small SUV that is only available for fleet purchase. You can't buy one, but you may get stuck with one as a rental.

(*) I believe these may be offered Canada alongside the new Impala, but I'm not sure.
(**) The Captiva is actually a Mexican market car which you could buy if you lived in Mexico.

Re:Rent a Tesla for $1

[mark.steffen]

I would not do that because that would require Tesla to pay an unnecessary intermediary to be party to the transaction. Just because a law is both well known and long standing does not make it a good law, nor does it mean that such a law reflects current conditions. Technically Mr. Musk can sell me a car now. There are Tesla owners in Iowa now.

Re:Rent a Tesla for $1

[whoever57]

If the dealer requirement is removed so direct sells are allowed, expect an influx of inexpensive vehicles from SE Asia with no means of warranty repair or service. Yes, buyer be ware, but really, is it a good idea for the masses to be purchasing vehicles from Amazon?

Strangely, this anarchic sale of cars direct to the public by manufacturers that provide no after sales support has not happened in California. California would provide the best market for this activity, being on the west coast, with a large market.

Re:Rent a Tesla for $1

[Anonymous Coward]

In addition, many of the manufacturers didn't last very long and the consumer was stuck with a vehicle that couldn't be serviced or repaired. So laws were enacted to protect consumers, including required dealerships.

Surely this would create a good incentive for more repair shops to be created, due to higher demand? It works just fine across the pond, why wouldn't it work in the US?

Re:Rent a Tesla for $1

[dave420]

For someone so angry you sure don't know what the words mean. Let me help you:

Republic = A country not ruled by a dynastic leader
Democracy = A country/system where people vote
Representative democracy = A country/system where people vote for people to act in their interests

So the US is both a republic and a democracy. Britain, for example, is not a republic, but is also a democracy.

Re:Rent a Tesla for $1

[dywolf]

Old people without birth certificates.
Minorities who can't get to the DMV because it's only open for 3 hours, 2 days a week, during working hours, and is located clear across town in a place with no public transportation.

Across the country hundreds of thousands of people stand to be disenfranchised in an effort to stop a fraud fewer than half a dozen fraudulent voters. Voter ID only stops inpersonation, which is the most UNCOMMON form of voter fraud. Think about it: it has the highest risk, the highest cost, and the lowest reward consisting of one extra vote.

Voter ID is a soution in serach of a problem.
That's a tremendous downside that way WAY outweighs a nearly nonexistent benefit.
Unless of course it's all a smokescreen, and the true purpose is to prevent people you dont agree with from voting...in which case it's working out pretty well.

At the end of the day, the answer is simple: anything that prevents or impairs voting in a democracy is evil.

Anyone who opposes making voting easier, who would rather make it harder, who is threatened by higher voter turnouts, is unAmerican.
Politicians should shape their politics to their constituents, not shape their constituency to fit their politics.

Re:Rent a Tesla for $1

[Dcnjoe60]

If the dealer requirement is removed so direct sells are allowed, expect an influx of inexpensive vehicles from SE Asia with no means of warranty repair or service. Yes, buyer be ware, but really, is it a good idea for the masses to be purchasing vehicles from Amazon?

Strangely, this anarchic sale of cars direct to the public by manufacturers that provide no after sales support has not happened in California. California would provide the best market for this activity, being on the west coast, with a large market.

That is because for the other 49 states, it applies. It wouldn't be a good business model to piss off your other dealers by selling direct in California. Effectively you would be in competition with them. Then, if they changed to other brands, you'd be without a network and the other states don't allow direct sales.

However, as you point out, CA doesn't have this requirement and yet, how many dealerships are franchises versus factory owned and is the level of service significantly different. I would guess not, but the manufactures still use franchised dealerships because it is a much more efficient model for delivering product, produces franchise revenues and it is less costly, in the long run, than owning the dealership itself.

Re:Rent a Tesla for $1

[Trailer Trash]

But again, why is it only automobile franchises that are the problem and not all fast food and retail franchises that are anti-competitive?

You have no idea what you're talking about. McDonald's can own stores and franchise the brand at the same time - nobody cares. I have no problem with auto dealers - the issue is that if Tesla wants to sell directly then they should be able to. The only reason to disallow it is to limit competition for entrenched players.

By the way, thanks for playing the part described above. If not you, somebody else would have. But you folks are always good for a laugh.

Re:Rent a Tesla for $1

[hxnwix]

I'm curious. Why would anyone use the baseline of North Korea? Are they in any way representative?

For the purposes of this discussion, they represent a democracy, making them a representative democracy.

Re:Rent a Tesla for $1

[Newander]

And the electoral college was created so that the average person wouldn't have too much say in who the president should be.

Re:Rent a Tesla for $1

[Khyber]

"The states have the right to legislate their own local economy."

When it comes down to a product from one state being sold in another, no they do not. This is EXPLICITLY STATED IN THE CONSTITUTION.

" They are not preventing Tesla from selling their cars, they're simply saying "if you want to sell here, you must be an auto dealer."

Wrong, they are not saying that. They are saying they are not allowed to sell directly in that state without licensing the dealership rights to someone, first. That is an illegal restraint of trade and violation of Tesla's right to license their invention/product as they see fit, among other things.

Re:Rent a Tesla for $1

[PopeRatzo]

For the purposes of this discussion, they represent a democracy

If your baseline of a democracy is North Korea, the discussion you're having is imaginary.

Or, you are the supreme leader of North Korea.

Re:Rent a Tesla for $1

[RockDoctor]

Tesla probably has the ability to fight and win outright.

Though that may take 20 or 30 years.

Re:Rent a Tesla for $1

[Anonymous Coward]

The only people who support these ridiculous laws are the dealerships themselves. Overturning them would be popular and politicians don't care where the money that re-elects them comes from.

Re:Rent a Tesla for $1

[Anonymous Coward]

what law could the feds even pass? the "thou must allow tesla to sell cars directly to people in iowa" law?

Iowa probably can't stop people from buying tesla's in a neighboring state due to the interstate commerce clause, but they can stop tesla from selling cars in there own state (not that i think it is right). and then if they wanted to get vindictive they could probably stop people from driving those tesla's that were legally purchased in another state from driving them in iowa by refusing to allow the state DMV to register them because the batteries are over the limit for "chemicals known to be carcinogens to the state of iowa"

Re:Rent a Tesla for $1

[Nethemas the Great]

I think the most efficient means for Tesla to squash this regulatory capture is probably to focus on building momentum for it's vehicles as well as manufacturer direct sales and maintenance in those states presenting no or minimal obstacles. It's far harder for the entrenched interests to fight ubiquity and "me too" protests than it is to fight a team of lawyers from a start up company with right on their side.

Re:Rent a Tesla for $1

[Dcnjoe60]

But again, why is it only automobile franchises that are the problem and not all fast food and retail franchises that are anti-competitive?

You have no idea what you're talking about. McDonald's can own stores and franchise the brand at the same time - nobody cares. I have no problem with auto dealers - the issue is that if Tesla wants to sell directly then they should be able to. The only reason to disallow it is to limit competition for entrenched players.

By the way, thanks for playing the part described above. If not you, somebody else would have. But you folks are always good for a laugh.

Tesla isn't wanting to set up their own Tesla owned dealerships. They are wanting to skip the dealership all together. Given the volume of vehicles they are planning on producing, that makes sense from a business perspective. Delorean tried the same thing, which is one of the reasons states without automobile dealer franchise laws added them and those with them, strengthen them.

Yes, people could take their Delorean to a regular mechanic to work on it (and had to in many states). However, that same mechanic can refuse to work on it. A dealer's mechanic can't and they must service the car. Like it or not, those laws were put into place for consumer protection and to protect the franchise owner from the manufacture. Whether they are still needed or not today, is open for debate. However, Tesla could easily get around the law by selling franchises for $1 each. The fact that they are willing to spend a lot of money on attorney fees to challenge the laws probably means there is some other reason they don't want to do that. That's the question people should be asking.

Re:Rent a Tesla for $1

[david_thornley]

IANAL, and this might be painfully obvious, but it seems to me that a state trying to block a transaction between a resident of that state and a resident of another state is on shaky legal ground.

Re:Rent a Tesla for $1

[Trailer Trash]

The fact that they are willing to spend a lot of money on attorney fees to challenge the laws probably means there is some other reason they don't want to do that. That's the question people should be asking.

It's called "principle", something that's uncommon in the left-wing world.

Re:Rent a Tesla for $1

[khallow]

but it seems to me that a state trying to block a transaction between a resident of that state and a resident of another state is on shaky legal ground.

Only if the transaction is interstate/out of state.

Re:Rent a Tesla for $1

[danbert8]

While I agree with the AC that the majority of regions lean republican, the reality is that this problem is a result of gerrymandering. I believe in addition to restoring the states appointing senators, the house should move to an MMP election system to more accurately represent the political beliefs of the people. More people might lean democrat than republican at this point, but the reality is that most people are against the two party system (but despite that won't vote that way under the current system).

Re:Rent a Tesla for $1

[danbert8]

Election fraud is claimed to be rare because there is no way to quantify it if you can't verify the identity of the voter. I could vote for my whole family and no one would know. All my friends who are lazy and I can't get to go to mid-term elections I might as well vote for them too. All I need is a passable signature and their home address (which is public record). Now when people are polled, do they admit to committing a crime? Probably rarely...

I believe we need to make election processes simple, efficient, sensible, and communicated well in advance of the election. In other words, NOT what the republicans are proposing... They should be implementing these laws for the NEXT election cycle at a minimum, and make it well known to the population well in advance of any candidates even being proposed. You shouldn't campaign on election laws at all.

As for making it harder for people to vote. Maybe it'll be called racist to say this, but people who live in the United States of America in 2014 without a form of photo ID are EXACTLY the people who shouldn't be voting. There are plenty of other people WITH photo ID who also shouldn't be voting, but I will not shed one tear for someone who can't vote because they can't come up with proof of their identification.

Of course, the alternative that I would be happy with is the simple ink on the hand that 3rd world countries do that is more effective in preventing voter fraud than what we have now...

Re:Rent a Tesla for $1

[hxnwix]

For the purposes of this discussion, they represent a democracy

If your baseline of a democracy is North Korea, the discussion you're having is imaginary.

Or, you are the supreme leader of North Korea.

They represent democracy, for the purposes of this discussion. Making them a representative democracy.

Also, for the purposes of this discussion, Cypress Hill will be representing the west coast, and a Mr. Pope Ratzo will be representing confused people who still don't get it.

Re:Rent a Tesla for $1

[torkus]

I'm not sure about that...

Right now they surely are production-constrained, however with that comes some financial constraint. Limited income means it's costly to throw money at things that aren't yet necessary (or can be had for free). Yes there's $bajillions backing them as/if/when needed...but having that much $ is indicative of knowing when, and what NOT, to spend it.

Why pay for advertising when you don't have enough product to sell? Why not 'fight the good fight' and get all your press for free so people are lined up waiting for when you DO have products finally sell? Spend the advertising dollars on lawsuits you'd have to fight anyhow. People listen to stories about your company/cars ... then flip channels when news pauses for GM/ford/etc. commercials. You build the brand...and continue to remain production-constrained with minimal advertising spend.

People will line up to jump through hoops - if there are hoops.

Re:Rent a Tesla for $1

[macpacheco]

Tesla has a production backlog of 20 thousand Model X, plus the Tesla Model S in production is taking 2 months in a production queue before it even starts production. That's close to 25 thousand units in backlog. Or 6 months worth of current production capacity.

There is already some analysis that Tesla is trying to avoid people from placing more Model X orders, since they know customers won't be happy to wait up to a year until they equalize the Model X backlog with the Model S backlog.

Tesla just made a US$ 100 million upgrade to its factory, essentially doubling its production capacity. The 2nd production line is Model X capable.
But this doesn't help with production levels if they can't get enough Li-Ion cells.

If they "fight the good fight", they might find their production backlog growing from 2-3 months to one year. New customers will be pissed if this happens.

This is business.

Elon Musk is a genious, but he picks his battles far more carefully than others that have his mental abilities.

Re:Rent a Tesla for $1

[Agripa]

Do you have a theory on what grounds Tesla could use to take the matter to court?

The statutory law may specifically state that manufacturers who have dealerships within the state may not sell directly to end customers. This would not apply to Tesla since they have no dealers but that is how other states have been implementing it.

http://yro.slashdot.org/story/...

Good to see this kind of crap

[Anonymous Coward]

It will raise attention to absurdity of the situation, and folks looking to buy Teslas tend to be the upper middle class and above folks who are more likely to be influential, used to getting their way. Things will not turn out well for moronic states that try to maintain this ridiculous state sanctioned protection racket.

Re:Good to see this kind of crap

[Anonymous Coward]

FYI, that's not what a protection racket is.

Re:Good to see this kind of crap

[ShanghaiBill]

Conservatives are criminal-minded hypocrites and voters should wake up and vote them out.

Car dealer franchise laws are common in both conservative and liberal states. Iowa, the subject of TFA, is a moderate swing state.

Re: Good to see this kind of crap

[Anonymous Coward]

Uh no. Iowa has been right wing for a long time. In addition. Nearly all of the other states, are rabid right wingers in control.

Re: Good to see this kind of crap

[ShanghaiBill]

Uh no. Iowa has been right wing for a long time.

Tom Harkin is likely the most left wing senator. Iowa elected him repeatedly for decades. The legislature is balanced, with Democrats controlling the Senate, and Republican the House, neither with much of a majority. The governor is Republican, but the last two were Democrats. Iowa may be right wing compared to, say, France, but by American standards it is centrist.

In addition. Nearly all of the other states, are rabid right wingers in control.

Two of the states with the most strict car dealer franchise laws are Maryland and New Jersey. Tesla is locked out of both states.

Re: Good to see this kind of crap

[sumdumass]

You pretend that these right wingers got into office and passed these laws as soon as possible simply to throw sticks at tesla.

I doubt that is the case and most those laws were created years earlier. Some perhaps even when democrats were in charge. I know my home state has the same laws and they were passed well before I was born. I also know for a fact that the left has had control of my home state several times over my lifetime and failed to remove those laws.

So lets stop pretending this is a left/right issue. It is a state issue, the laws came into play long before Tesla was more than a twinkle in anyone's eye and you complaining about the right wing only makes you look like a rabid idiot who is too lazy to look at reality.

Re:Good to see this kind of crap

[JimSadler]

Thank God i found a soul mate. Yes, the right wing doctrines are evil and those that support evil are evil. The age of capitalism is dead. It was killed by reality and the right wing just can't get it. We are now entering the age of cooperation instead of the age of competition. We have no choice now. Yet the cluster of assumptions is log jammed into the conservative mind. Politicians yelp about growth. Yet we see what growth has done to cities like Detroit. Nature demands that roof tops occupy less space, that roads disrupt less space, that agriculture be more productive with far less side effects and that big oil and big coal start to shut down altogether. So in order to have an economy we need to count on more quality and not more space and more pollution. Tesla is a land mark in quality and deserves every bit of support that government, both left and right wing as well as all of the public support Tesla. And some jerk who happens to make his living selling gasoline powered cars needs to get out of business until he can sell a product at least as good as the Tesla. We do not support welfare for car dealership owners.

Re:Good to see this kind of crap

[Attila Dimedici]

The funny thing about your comment is that the some of the strongest backers of the Jim Crow laws, at a time when most politicians were turning against them, were Al Gore, Sr (perhaps you've heard of his son?) and William Fulbright (mentor to one William Jefferson Clinton).

Re:Good to see this kind of crap

[khallow]

Sarcasm or serious? I can't tell (especially with yet another broken Slashdot UI feature keeping me from glancing at your posting history). All I can say though is that I'll take this sort of rant seriously when they come up with a better system rather than just rag on capitalism.

Re:Good to see this kind of crap

[Anonymous Coward]

Doesn't mean it's not criminal.

All those legal rackets find a foothold in one place, and they expand outword. Today but especially back then.

Re: Good to see this kind of crap

[Anonymous Coward]

Iowa voted for Democrats in 6 of the last 7 presidential races. Not exactly a bastion of conservatism.
http://www.270towin.com/states/Iowa

Re:Good to see this kind of crap

[Anonymous Coward]

Obviously that's why it made the news.
Vote the bums out!
Vote the new bums in, as long as they're liberal it'll work.

Re: Good to see this kind of crap

[Anonymous Coward]

Shhh. You can't respond to a partisan left wing hack with facts and logic. You have to yell "THINK OF THE CHILDREN" or "LOOK RACISM"

Re:Good to see this kind of crap

[Nethemas the Great]

You do not need to provide a complete and better solution before pointing out the flaws in an existing one. While being anti-capitalistic in its own right, elucidating problems, sharing discoveries and ideas is the most efficient means of coming to a solution for any particular challenge. Capitalism is capable of achieving only local maximum. The easiest way to see this is to imagine the nations of the world all comporting themselves as the Western world does. Capitalism by definition is a pyramid wherein each layer stands upon the back of others. With each rise in elevation fewer are able to be supported. Until utopia has been achieved for all, we should not rest with what we have.

such BS...

[Anonymous Coward]

I hope they challenge the law and get it struck down somehow. It's such Bullshit.

Re:such BS...

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah but without these import consumer protections, the United States would look just like Somalia, or something.

Re:such BS...

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah but without these import consumer protections, the United States would look just like Somalia, or something.

The USA is headed for a Somolian future anyway. Why the pretence of a continuation of the affluence during the aftermath of World War II? When the baby boomers try to sell their houses the current working generation won't be able to afford those houses. Welcome to your cardboard box, I mean your new home...please refrain from any open flames and rainfall.

The "old boys' club"

[Chas]

The sooner Tesla breaks open this idiotic "members only" crap, the better.

I'm not saying dealers don't provide a valuable service. Or that they didn't provide protections to consumers at one time.
The fact is, one angry consumer, TODAY, has orders of magnitude more power to make an automaker acknowledge a grievance than we EVER had in the past.

One nasty little YouTube video can, potentially, reach millions of consumers.

Wheras 80 years ago, if Joe Blow in Podunk, Idaho got shafted, what was he gonna do? Drive to Detroit and crash the gates?

Re:The "old boys' club"

[Anonymous Coward]

Just ask Apple.... They know the embarrassment one video can make.

Re:The "old boys' club"

[The New Guy 2.0]

You don't understand. Tesla is trying to sell to the public... and states are saying "You're not ready!" so they have to use member-only sales to get this on the road in the few places that's allowed... Tesla is getting legislated out of existence in most places.

Re:The "old boys' club"

[Anonymous Coward]

Until all the dealers are wiped out and the 10 remaining car manufacturers start behaving like the cell companies do.
In Israel you can get unlimited cell phone calls plus 6GB data for under $28 a month including (new as of last month ) roaming (calls and same data) in part of the EU (France and Spain for now other countries coming soon. Try getting that in the US. The cheapest Sim I could find a year ago in CA was $50 a month with I think 1GB, roaming in the EU? Ha ha..
Anything that increases competition is good. When all the selling and maintenance are done by a small number of companies there will be nothing you can do about it.

Re:The "old boys' club"

[7213]

"Tesla is getting legislated out of existence in most places."

Please explain.

The laws denying auto manufacturers from selling directly to consumers are ancient & GM blamed them too some degree for their bankruptcy back in 2008.

There are also laws forbidding movie studios from owning movie theaters, based on similar reasoning.

These aren't NEW, they aren't getting 'legislated out of existence' they failed to build a business model that fits the current laws. Either they modify their model & sign up dealers (boo!) or continue to fight this in court (hooray!).

Re:The "old boys' club"

[Chas]

That's great until they win a federal case.

All Tesla needs is a good, solid win at the federal level and this shit goes away.
Slowly, but it WILL go away.

Re:The "old boys' club"

[Anonymous Coward]

>federal
how? it's not interstate commerce.

Re:The "old boys' club"

[Frosty Piss]

You don't understand. Tesla is trying to sell to the public... and states are saying "You're not ready!"

No, that's not at all what the states are saying. Auto dealerships have paid politicians to pass laws that prevent direct sales because it is a threat to their business model.

Re:The "old boys' club"

[The New Guy 2.0]

Anytime Tesla gets close to a legal sale, they get these kinds of legislative headaches like this one in Iowa. They just can't get the licenses they need, and new license requirements that say no one else can ever get close to Tesla's ideas are passing.

Re:The "old boys' club"

[lakeland]

Er, yes, of course it is. Tesla is not an Iowa company. Iowa customers are. When they buy off Tesla, that's an interstate commercial transaction.

it's pretty damn hard for a state like iowa to tell Tesla what they're doing is illegal when Tesla can point to a federal ruling that preventing car manufacturers selling cars to the public is legal. Until Tesla have that ruling all they can point to is legal opinions which carry a lot less weight.

Re:The "old boys' club"

[The Snowman]

federal

how? it's not interstate commerce.

Tesla Motors is headquartered in Palo Alto, CA. They are trying to sell in as many states as possible, and this article is about them conducting commerce in Iowa. Last time I checked, Iowa and California were different states. Furthermore, Tesla is building a battery factory in Nevada and their assembly plant is in Fremont, CA. While obviously California-centric, they are involved in multiple states.

Re: The "old boys' club"

[Anonymous Coward]

How is it not? You are a California company selling to Iowa. I know we've twisted the commerce clause to cover growing your own food, but surely it still applies to commerce conducted across state lines.

Re:The "old boys' club"

[beelsebob]

How is a California company selling to an Iowa customer not interstate commerce?

Re:The "old boys' club"

[Anonymous Coward]

I think you are wrong. I work at a large dealership and we couldn't possibly afford to do so. Until the last few years there hasn't been any dealerships larger than the one I am at currently and these laws are much older.

Looking at history, it appears many of these laws were put into place back in the day when GM and Ford were screwing customers at their own company dealerships because people couldn't take their cars anywhere else because they refused to sell parts to others. So I think it was the people that asked for those laws back in the day before dearlships were very big at all.

But we can't be bothered to look up history when its easier to screm "its evil corpz!!!!1!1"

Re:The "old boys' club"

[Noah Haders]

iowa customers are an iowa company? that doesn't even make sense. unless they only sell to corporate clients incorporated within the state.

Re:The "old boys' club"

[pubwvj]

"I'm not saying dealers don't provide a valuable service."

I am. Dealers provide a huge disservice. They are over priced, monopolistic and provide awful service because they can. Since they don't have competition they get away with this.

Re:The "old boys' club"

[Anonymous Coward]

The sooner Tesla breaks open this idiotic "members only" crap, the better.

I'm not saying dealers don't provide a valuable service. Or that they didn't provide protections to consumers at one time.
The fact is, one angry consumer, TODAY, has orders of magnitude more power to make an automaker acknowledge a grievance than we EVER had in the past.

One nasty little YouTube video can, potentially, reach millions of consumers.

Wheras 80 years ago, if Joe Blow in Podunk, Idaho got shafted, what was he gonna do? Drive to Detroit and crash the gates?

And yet with all of the vast redneck power of YouTube to give an idiot a platform to rant on, just exactly who is still getting bent over sideways with no lube?

Yeah, that's right. The fucking consumer.

Spare me your ramblings of our mighty tools. They haven't changed a damn thing in 100 years.

Re:The "old boys' club"

[Anonymous Coward]

Really? How long did it take Woz to get anyone to acknowledge his acceleration problem?

Not that a dealer would've helped but let's not exaggerate either

Re:The "old boys' club"

[__aaltlg1547]

The State is right. Tesla is breaking the law:
Iowa Code 322.3.1 A person shall not engage in this state in the business of
            selling at retail new motor vehicles of any make or represent or
            advertise that the person is engaged or intends to engage in such
            business in this state unless the person is authorized to do so by a
            contract in writing with the manufacturer or distributor of such make
            of new motor vehicles and unless the department has licensed the
            person as a motor vehicle dealer in this state in motor vehicles of
            such make and has issued to the person a license in writing as
            provided in this chapter.
Iowa Code 322.3.14. A manufacturer or importer shall not directly or indirectly
            be licensed as, own an interest in, operate, or control a motor
            vehicle dealer. "

You need to change the law first, THEN you can sell cars legally. Were I in Iowa, I wouldn't buy a Tesla. There's a risk that it may be impounded as evidence in a case against Tesla.

Re:The "old boys' club"

[Anonymous Coward]

Just so you know - a legal personhood (company or individual) which is resident in one state can purchase a good or service from another legal personhood whose residency, correspondence address, and income, fall under the jurisdiction of another state.

This kind of thing has been happening for a few thousand years. Get out of Buttfuck sometime and you can see for yourself.

Re:The "old boys' club"

[Anonymous Coward]

Stop being an obtuse idiot and ignoring that they (very obviously) meant that Tesla is not in Iowa but the customer is. Simply ignore the second occurrence of the word "company" and it makes sense. I guess you are looking for a fight or something?

Re:The "old boys' club"

[tepples]

they failed to build a business model that fits the current laws

So prior to the 1860s, did people born into slavery in the United States "fail[] to build a business model that fit[] the [then] current laws"?

Re:The "old boys' club"

[Anonymous Coward]

Evil corpz abusing their position was the reason the law had to be made (it might not have been the right solution, but it was the one picked at the time) and now the same corpz are abusing the new law and we should do something indeed - the theme here is "evil corpz will abuse their position whenever they can"

It was certainly the corpz asking for a law by not playing fair. and now they found a way to do it again. you probably also blame rape-victims right?

Re:The "old boys' club"

[The Raven]

Not quite. See, they were not selling. They were advertising. This is similar to Harley taking their new electric motorcycle around to events to show it off. There is no law against letting people drive your car. People who liked it enough could drive to buy it in the next state over.

Re:The "old boys' club"

[Anonymous Coward]

It is doubly. An Iowa person selling something to someone else in Iowa is interstate commerce. In fact, you have to bend over backwards to find something that isn't.

Re:The "old boys' club"

[Anonymous Coward]

they shouldn't have the right to pass such shit laws in the first pace. we really need to scale back the scope of government. this shit is out of control.

Re:The "old boys' club"

[Anonymous Coward]

According to the Supreme Court, there really isn't such a thing as non-interstate commerce anymore. Weed got hit with that absurd interpretation - despite the fact that it was grown in state and sold only to in state buyers and neither the buyers or sellers ever crossed state lines to conduct their transactions.

Re:The "old boys' club"

[Anonymous Coward]

Propaganda. Either you're lying or you have been spoon-fed the lie and believe it.

Let's look at the money being spent: http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/indus.php?ind=T2300

Re:The "old boys' club"

[AK Marc]

GM blamed them too some degree for their bankruptcy back in 2008.

Like they blamed unions. The unions formed in response to their poor treatment of workers. Then every union contract that was in effect was signed by GM. But it's the union's fault GM forced them into existence and worked with them.

GM backed the creation of these rules. It was an anti-competitive rule to raise the barriers of entry against smaller makers. GM helped make those laws, then complains about them years later, like they had no hand in making them.

These aren't NEW, they aren't getting 'legislated out of existence' they failed to build a business model that fits the current laws.

The law says that a dealer in Iowa can't be the manufacturer. The federal law (should trump Iowa law) says that states can't restrict interstate commerce.

Iowa says it's illegal for a Californian company to sell to an Iowan buyer. Iowa is violating US law to block these drives and sales.

Re:The "old boys' club"

[AK Marc]

Tesla is a CA company trying to sell interstate to Iowa customers. Iowa is blocking that interstate commerce.

Re:The "old boys' club"

[Herkum01]

Considering they were offering test drives, I fail to see where they are selling a retail motor vehicle, at least at this point in time.

The question, from the above code that a manufacturer or importer cannot be licensed as a vehicle dealer is discriminatory and whether that is beneficial to the public. Depending on the judge and interpretation of the law, if no public good can be established it can be a reason to overturn a law.

Re:The "old boys' club"

[AK Marc]

Because the laws in Iowa apply to Iowa manufacturers and CA manufacturers the same.

Proof, are there any blue laws in your area? Good, now open a store that violates them. Then claim that you are selling beer from out of state, thus it's interstate commerce and unregulatable by the local/state government. You can argue all you like. You may even be right. You will lose.

Re:The "old boys' club"

[AK Marc]

You need to change the law first, THEN you can sell cars legally.

I take away from that that Tesla needs to have its only sales office in AK or OR (someplace without sales tax) and "sell" the car elsewhere and deliver it to the buyer. Moving the sale location invalidates the Iowa law, and is easier than changing law.

Re:The "old boys' club"

[Anonymous Coward]

You are a coward. Take a little risk in life, hey?

Re:The "old boys' club"

[diamondmagic]

Commerce is either interstate or intrastate.

Many of their business operations might be interstate - and thus subject to federal law - but a sale in Iowa from Iowa to Iowa is not.

Re:The "old boys' club"

[Chaos Incarnate]

As soon as Tesla set up shop in Iowa (the site they're doing the test drives from), it ceased to be interstate commerce.

Re:The "old boys' club"

[fermion]

Tesla is part of the old boys club and they are playing it perfectly. First they create an exclusive product to sell to a privalidged few. Then they say they are going to create a product for anyone, any day now, and start crying how the states are oppressing them and keeping them for helping the impoverished masses. Then they play the old game of hustling states and end up with a deal that will result in the siphoning of 1.3 billion dollars of taxpayer money directly into Tesla's pocket, even if they never reach the targets of employment or sales. The only part of the old boys club they don't respect is that it fraud is a two way street. you can't take, you also have to give. Dealerships were one way for the car companies to spread the wealth back to the friendly politicians in the states. Tesla is saying it is all theirs, and they are not going to share.

Again, nothing against Tesla or electric cars, just saying they are not a knight in shining armor that is going to save us from the politicians and climate change. They are just another company trying to maximize profit and take whatever welfare they can get.

Re:The "old boys' club"

[Patent Lover]

Nobody in Iowa can afford a Tesla.

Re:The "old boys' club"

[galabar]

The restriction of not allowing Tesla to enter Iowa and sell its product is the issue. Taking your reasoning to its logical conclusion, any product that entered Iowa wouldn't represent interstate commerce because it then needs to be sold in Iowa. So, the federal government says that I can drive my bananas over the border. However, when I get there, I can't sell them. That would defeat the purpose of the commerce clause.

Re:The "old boys' club"

[whoever57]

As soon as Tesla set up shop in Iowa (the site they're doing the test drives from), it ceased to be interstate commerce.

So that's why the drugs the people buy from their local pharmacy are regulated by state laws and not federal laws .... oh wait.

The Supreme Court decided that just about anything can be interstate commerce. Growing weed in your own garden can be regulated as interstate commerce. Yeah, it's ridiculous, but that's the way things are.

Re:The "old boys' club"

[__aaltlg1547]

Who's going to stop them? The federal government?

Re:The "old boys' club"

[sumdumass]

Wow.. You are comparing a commercial business trying to sell cars to slavery?

I know Tesla is a darling and people seem to forget and ignore all the Corporations of Evil bable when it concerns them, but come on, you are completely crazy if you think requiring licenses and arms length distances between companies is even close to slavery.

Re:The "old boys' club"

[sumdumass]

The law says that a dealer in Iowa can't be the manufacturer. The federal law (should trump Iowa law) says that states can't restrict interstate commerce.

This isn't interstate commerce though.

Iowa says it's illegal for a Californian company to sell to an Iowan buyer. Iowa is violating US law to block these drives and sales.

No, the law says t's illegal for a Californian company to sell to an Iowan buyer _in_Iowa_. That buyer can go to California or any other state where the sale is legal, purchase the car and bring it back to Iowa (then go through the process of transferring the tittle from California to Iowa and all).

Also, what law do you think Iowa is violating? Don't quite the US constitution as it is not a law, it is a restriction on government. If congress has not made a law pertaining to this, whether they have authority to do so is meaningless unless they have acted on that authority. As far as I am aware, they have not which is how California is able to place emissions restrictions on cars manufactured outside the state over and above federal regulation for all car sold in the state.

Re:The "old boys' club"

[Anonymous Coward]

The state is wrong. They are selling Electric Vehicles, not motor vehicles.

Re:The "old boys' club"

[toolo]

I'm sure the big players are rubbing their hands with glee and quietly cheering for Tesla to be the bad guy here. As soon as those laws are overturned, I'm sure the 'car dealership franchise thing' will rapidly get blown up and be a thing of the past. It seems to be a supremely expensive and risky business model (huge tracts of land in prime areas, huge buildings, tons of staff, tons of risk by a franchiser loaning out the corporate brand) that should be disrupted. Tesla has it right but they will pave the way for all cars to be sold their way and lose the competitive edge of cutting out the middle man quickly.

Re:The "old boys' club"

[sumdumass]

Taking your reasoning to its logical conclusion, any product that entered Iowa wouldn't represent interstate commerce because it then needs to be sold in Iowa.

That would be correct if the sales happened after the product entered Iowa. For instance, I cannot develop and sell a gun that is legal in Ohio but illegal in California and sell that gun in California after taking it there. I can however, sell it to someone else who may or may not be planning to take it to California and that would be between them and the state.

So, the federal government says that I can drive my bananas over the border. However, when I get there, I can't sell them

That would be incorrect. When you get there, you can sell them just like they allow others in the state to sell them. If that means you need a license or bond or something, then that is what you need to do.

That would defeat the purpose of the commerce clause.

Not at all. You see, California has for the longest times, set Emission, safety, and fuel consumption standards on cars that are a lot more strict than EPA regulation. When Ford or Chevy or whoever sells a car in California, it has to meet those standards regardless of where it is manufactured. Otherwise, Ford can say piss off, these gas guzzling polluting cars were made in Ohio or something. A California resident could scoff at newly passed regulation by simply relocating outside the state then importing back into it.

Re:The "old boys' club"

[galabar]

http://www.epa.gov/otaq/cafr.h... You have no idea what you are talking about. Read and understand the above and then respond.

Re:The "old boys' club"

[tepples]

I was giving an example of "the current laws" not being productive in the long term. Sometimes an extreme example is needed to establish the endpoints of a bisection search for when one should build a business model around current law versus when to challenge the law itself.

Re:The "old boys' club"

[Attila Dimedici]

While what you are saying is probably pretty close to what the Framers of the Constitution intended, it bears no resemblance to what the courts have actually ruled. The Supreme Court ruled that a farmer growing wheat for consumption by livestock on his own farm was subject to regulation under the commerce clause (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v._Filburn). Until the Supreme Court makes a ruling reversing that one, everything and anything is interstate commerce.

Re:The "old boys' club"

[sumdumass]

Sigh.. Are you really that dense?

The entire reason the waiver program exists is because California has put restrictions in place before the EPA started regulating it. How about you get an idea about what you are talking about and brush up on your comprehension skills a bit before failing in lecturing others.

Re:The "old boys' club"

[suutar]

My understanding is that Iowa is not saying "you cannot sell to an Iowan". They are saying "you aren't licensed to have a showroom, or give test drives".

Most dealers buy the cars from the manufacturer (which is typically a transaction crossing state lines) and then they sell them to locals (a transaction not crossing state lines), although they sometimes have enough creative bookkeeping that they don't pay the manufacturer until they get paid. An Iowan is, as far as I know, perfectly able to order a car from Tesla of CA and, assuming they can arrange shipping, take delivery in Iowa. But they can't go to a showroom in Iowa, look it over, and take a test drive, so they better be sure it's what they really want. They also may have a hard time finding a shop that can service the car, since Tesla isn't licensed to have one of those either.

Re:The "old boys' club"

[Anonymous Coward]

lots of guillotines

Re:The "old boys' club"

[Undead Waffle]

I doubt that would work. I assume that in order for them to "sell" the car in a different state you would have to register the car in that state, which requires you to be a resident of the state.

Re:The "old boys' club"

[AK Marc]

I have seen people fly to a different state to buy a car (new or used) and have it delivered or drive it back. Living in Alaska, I have no choice for some things (it's the one dealer in the state, or nothing), so people buy from Seattle and ship it to Alaska, or fly down and drive it back. Cross-state vehicle sales isn't as doubtful as you think.

When my mother moved to Alaska, she bought a "new" car (used Subaru) to drive up (used cars are expensive in Alaska). She bought it in Texas. From a Texas dealer. And registered it in Alaska, without ever having it registered in Texas. Done that way to avoid Texas sales tax, but common and suggested by the Texas dealer (presumably legal, or someone would have stopped them, right?).

Re:The "old boys' club"

[Anonymous Coward]

Nope they just need to sell their cars there as pre-owned, with 1 mille / killometer in the odometer.

That way the cars are not new anymore. And they discount on the price $100 dollars.

That will cover the 322.3.1

The other one is a bit more tricky.

Re:The "old boys' club"

[0100010001010011]

A person shall not engage in this state in the business of
                        selling at retail new motor

Ellon Musk should personally buy some cars and sell them at Auction as 'used cars, low milage' in Iowa.

Re:The "old boys' club"

[rsborg]

The law says that a dealer in Iowa can't be the manufacturer. The federal law (should trump Iowa law) says that states can't restrict interstate commerce.

This isn't interstate commerce though.

Iowa says it's illegal for a Californian company to sell to an Iowan buyer. Iowa is violating US law to block these drives and sales.

No, the law says t's illegal for a Californian company to sell to an Iowan buyer _in_Iowa_. ...

Are you sure you understand the interstate commerce? What you're describing sounds exactly like interstate commerce. Are you saying that Iowa could prevent a California-based internet company from selling products over the internet to be delivered in Iowa?

Re:The "old boys' club"

[sumdumass]

You are missing the key elements here _in_Iowa_. If the sale took place via mail order or internet and the consumer went to them via one of those methods, it would be interstate commerce. However, once they start conducting parts of the sale in Iowa, it becomes an intrastate commerce transaction and all the rules effecting others in the state will apply. This is the entire idea behind the substantial nexus concept the courts use to determine if a company from another state is subject to the taxing laws and jurisdiction of any certain state.

But lets look at this from a much broader perspective. You purchase clothing and food that likely was made in another state or perhaps even another country. This is interstate commerce by no means. However, once that food and clothing is located within the state, it if hasn't already changed hands of ownership from the original marketer to you, it then becomes subject to state laws. So if they decide to open a mall with a food court, they do not get to claim interstate commerce and exempt themselves from the rules and regulations of your state and local laws because they are selling to you in your state. If they operated a website and you purchased the items online and they shipped them to you from out of state, they would/may not be (depending on if they advertise directly in the state, store product there and so on to create that substantial nexus again).

Now this is muddled a bit with how the Supreme Court has expanded the meaning of interstate commerce to shoe horn laws and regulation in that the federal government should have no business dealing with unless the US constitution is amended. But as of now, it is still the way described- Once I advertise or do anything with the sale in your state, I will have to follow the rules of your state for any transaction within it.

Interstate commerce has traditionally never been about preempting commerce from other states, it has been about not allowing the states put penalties, taxes, and so on that would place commerce within the states at an advantage above anyone from outside it. Its to stop Iowa from banning all sales of Tesla cars instead of making Tesla follow Iowa laws while selling the cars in their state. But substitute anything that has regulation on it for cars and the same will be true. For instance, you own a roofing company in Arizona, you cannot claim interstate commerce when repairing/replacing a roof in Florida to get around local building codes, permits and so on that are more strict because of the hurricane threat not present in AZ. Once you enter the state to do business, you are subject to their rules.

Re:The "old boys' club"

[The New Guy 2.0]

If Teslas were safe enough and profitable, then the car dealership owners would be trying to affiliate with them.

Re:The "old boys' club"

[__aaltlg1547]

Then he would be acting as an unlicensed reseller on behalf of the company he owns. Also illegal. What makes you imagine that the Iowa legislature didn't think of every way a manufacturer could get around the law?

Re:The "old boys' club"

[0100010001010011]

People do this all the time with CA and NY when diesels weren't allowed.

Granted it wasn't the owner of the company but people would buy cars out of state, drive them to the minimum 16k(?) and sell them as used cars in CA.

Re:The "old boys' club"

[david_thornley]

That law is of questionable constitutionality. Has the Supreme Court ever ruled on this?

Re:The "old boys' club"

[Nethemas the Great]

In order to sell something in a particular location you need to have a point of presence in that location. When this "Interstate Commerce Clause" was conceived, no one had in mind that Iowans would be prevented from hitching up their wagons and driving to California to buy their plow. They were addressing issues such as the Iowan government baring, imposing tariffs, or otherwise restricting the flow of Californian goods and services in Iowa.

Re:The "old boys' club"

[Nethemas the Great]

I cannot say whether they are or are not. However, given that dealerships traditionally make their money from the service side, not sales, it is easy to see why dealers would not want to sell Teslas or other EVs from manufacturers that they're already selling for (think Nissan Leafs, and Chevy Volts). Compared to ICE powered cars, EVs require substantially less maintenance.

Re:The "old boys' club"

[Nethemas the Great]

The limited scope of government (federal at least) is a primary contributor to much of the bulls**t taking place within the states. Ironically, whenever citizens are grieved by their local governments they expect Mr. Obama (or current) to save them. Not Congress, not their state government, and definitely not their municipal legislators. A quick scan of the "We the People" petition site proves just how little people understand the governments presiding over them.

tis ok it wasnt a test ride

[Anonymous Coward]

It was just Tesla partnering with Uber in care pool sharing !

Yeah, Right.

[Anonymous Coward]

"Land of free"? BS! More like "Land of those who have enough money to pay lobbiers/lawyers".

Re:Yeah, Right.

[Anonymous Coward]

So, where does the authorized dealer and selling directly to the public come in?

Re:Yeah, Right.

[kermyt]

It's a safety thing. Tesla has more tests it needs to compete to say it's as safe as existing brands or close enough to be allowed on public roads. Sometimes the government has to say "We know you want it... but nobody knows what you're getting!"

Can I be the first to call Bullshit? Tesla has met and surpassed DOT standards. what safety issues need to be addressed before the Tesla can be sold? Even the fires that Tesla has experienced are at a much lower percentage than the fires that are fairly commonplace in gasoline cars. So please enlighten us on the "Safety Issues" that need to be addressed before the Tesla can be sold in Iowa.

Re:Yeah, Right.

[MasseKid]

This is tesla, not google's driverless car....

Iowa Approval

[Anonymous Coward]

If only Tesla could make a rechargeable battery out of ethanol (corn) and methane (pig shit). Then not only would Tesla suddenly become road legal in Iowa, but they would have the market cornered on raw materials for Tesla's batteries.

Not a safety thing.

[Brannon]

Tesla cars are allowed on the roads in Iowa. Iowa will even register a Tesla car and issue you license plates, etc. They've passed every safety test & regulation that any other car has.

You just can't *buy* a Tesla car in Iowa because of dealer-sponsored 'franchise' laws. It seems pretty weird that those laws cover giving out test drives--I'm sure Tesla's lawyers will look into that.

Re:Not a safety thing.

[Anonymous Coward]

You just can't *buy* a Tesla car in Iowa because of dealer-sponsored 'franchise' laws.

You can buy in any state (AFAIK). The limitation is on whether Tesla can market or accompany the transportation of the vehicle.

These are laws on SELLING not BUYING. Simply go online, order, and wait for delivery just like ordering a book on Amazon.

I don't have the Tesla link that explains it, but I did find the one for Texas:

http://www.teslamotors.com/advocacy_texas

The marketing/sales restrictions are burdensome, backwards and they make me proud to be an advocate of liberty for over two decades. I know about regulatory capture. That said, Tesla is milking the fuck out of this and the anti-libertarian crowd here is eating it up. This isn't like weed. Tesla can take your money and have a 3rd party ship you that car. No laws are broken.

Your historonics should be reserved for the war on drugs or the overseas acts of agression and war.

direct selling

[ihtoit]

So Franchise W selling only Porsche/VW/Skoda, Franchise X selling only Ford, Franchise Y selling only Daewoo, Franchise Z selling only Hyundai, they're not subject to this shit either? Who are they franchised to, in exclusive sales contracts? SURELY NOT THE MANUFACTURERS!?

If THEY can operate in Iowa, who are the State to tell ME I can't approach Tesla and say "Five percent gross from each sale and I'll only sell your car"?

Doesn't make sense? Ohreali? Am I the only one that sees gasoline favouritism by the State here?

Re:direct selling

[Anonymous Coward]

who are the State to tell ME I can't approach Tesla and say "Five percent gross from each sale and I'll only sell your car"?

They're not telling you you can't do that. In fact, they're telling Tesla they must do that. Iowa does not allow dealers to sell direct. They are forced by law to sell through a middleman. These laws date back to the time when the auto industry was first becoming powerful and threatened to undercut the very dealerships that made them successful by selling direct to the public through manufacturer owned dealerships. These laws were passed to protect the dealerships' livelihood as middlemen. At this point though, the laws are outdated and pointless.

Re: direct selling

[Anonymous Coward]

Dealers are more than just salesmen, they have obligations to be able to service all vehicles sold for a given period of time (I don't know the regs well enough to say for how long). I don't like these laws, but the theoretical purpose is to guarantee that if Tesla goes under, your car can still be serviced for some reasonable period of time.

Re:direct selling

[tepples]

It can't be completely about corporate dealers undercutting franchised dealers. If it were, the statute would have been phrased that an automaker can choose to sell through one or the other but not both.

Re:direct selling

[Anonymous Coward]

In some states the statutes *are* phrased this way. Other states either did a poor job of writing their law (no surprises there) or had some reason to think mandatory franchising was a good idea.

Re:direct selling

[Anonymous Coward]

Why not? The law was bought and paid for by the local franchised dealers for their benefit. Why would they give a manufacturer the option of putting the dealer out of business?

Tesla should come to the EU

[Anonymous Coward]

They've had a round of free money from the US taxpayer and now they get this shit in return. They should up sticks and move to the UK or Germany. Probably another round of free money to be had, a larger market (EU population 505 million vice USA population 313 million according to Google), easier access to Africa which could be the next exploding global marketplace (what's left of it after Ebola has swept through anyway). Plus, it would be Sticking It To The Man :) They could wait a few years then graciously return to the US market when you beg.

Re:Tesla should come to the EU

[Anonymous Coward]

http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=5763669&cid=48010717 Will come true (except america will be somalia as it is today and somalia will become a new international power - they do after all have a huge pirate-party down there :)

Re:Tesla should come to the EU

[JDAustin]

Sorry...but that would probably require a corporate inversion and the our draconian IRS cannot allow that.

Interstate Commerce clause.

[Insanity Defense]

So under the Constitution who is it that regulates interstate commerce again?

Re:Interstate Commerce clause.

[Anonymous Coward]

The supreme court, which are not democratically elected. Welcome to our proud oligarchy!

Re:Interstate Commerce clause.

[Insanity Defense]

Nope. They rule on the Constitutionality of the regulations they don't create them.

This is how government "solves problems"

[Anonymous Coward]

These laws came into place because they solved someone's problems years ago - probably consumer protection in some way.

Don't like it now, do you?

Well, today's "protections" will be doing the same thing in 50 years.

Re:This is how government "solves problems"

[n6kuy]

> probably consumer protection in some way.

You mean estabished dealer protection.

Re:This is how government "solves problems"

[CrimsonAvenger]

What? Aren't the dealers consumers? They buy cars from manufacturers, after all....

OK, so set up a tiny company owned "dealership".

[Dzimas]

Car makers are prohibited from selling directly to the public because they could potentially undercut their own dealers. In Tesla's case, there are no dealers to undercut. That said, the solution would be to set up a small company owned showroom in Iowa that acts as the seller of record for all online and in-person sales within the state.

No wonder Arizona and Texas didn't win Gigafactory

[JoeyRox]

The article lists all the states that ban or limit Tesla's no-delaer business model and it includes Texas and Arizona, two of the four finalists for Tesla's new battery Gigafactory. Did those states think they had a chance when they support that crooked business cronyism?

I trust Stan

[Anonymous Coward]

Iowa IS right. Tesla could never provide this level of service and customer protection as demonstrated in this historic documentation featuring Stan, the uttermost trustworthy sales man. http://youtube.com/watch?v=-2ok14ao5FY

Why would anyone buy directly from the maker, if they could deal with someone like Stan????

What do test drives have to do with it

[russotto]

I can see that Iowa can prohibit in-state sales not through dealers, but why would that forbid Tesla from providing test drives and then, if the customer wants to talk turkey, refer them to e.g. a Missouri store, or an Internet site based in another state? This is how Tesla handles NJ; you want a Tesla in NJ you can test drive one and then hop over to NY to buy it.

Is there some Iowa law against manufacturers allowing people to borrow cars for free?

Re:What do test drives have to do with it

[suutar]

Test drives are probably considered to be part of "the business of selling cars at retail" because while an individual may lend you their car for something, most companies will not lend you a car for free to just drive around a block or two.

The test drives were illegal for two reasons?

[lippydude]

The Iowa Department of Transportation said the test drives were illegal for two reasons: Tesla hasn't yet paid over our protection money and the car industry have paid up in full.

Re:OK, so set up a tiny company owned "dealership"

[LordNimon]

Tesla does not want to the pay the dealer fees just to sell cars, since the fees benefit their competitors.

Re:OK, so set up a tiny company owned "dealership"

[i.r.id10t]

So much like the firearms business...

Your local FFL dealer can order a Savage rimfire rifle from one of several wholesalers. But lets say you want a configuration that the factory doesn't offer (say, heavy barrel, target iron sights, wood stock). You can call the factory, place your order, they will charge you full MSRP for it, and ship it to your receiving FFL dealer. He/she will do the paperwork and background check, charge you $10 to $100 dollars, and you have the rifle the way you ordered it from the factory. Or your dealer can call, bypass the wholesalers on a config they don't carry/offer, and Savage will sell to him/her at the price the wholesalers charge.

Some online sellers/wholesalers of ammo, etc. also do storefront business in some states. They don't allow online orders from those states tho - cusomters must go thru the brick-n-morter place.

Another way to deal with the problem

[NormalVisual]

While I support Tesla's efforts against these ridiculous laws, and would personally like to see them challenged and struck down, could they not just lease the cars through a subsidiary that would hold the title (turning the new car into a used car), then transfer the title after the lease period is up? Or are leases treated in the same way as sales, and prevented under state law as well?

Re:Another way to deal with the problem

[__aaltlg1547]

Iowa Code 322.2.16. "Retail installment contract" or "contract" means an
            agreement, entered into in this state, pursuant to which the title
            to, the property in or a lien upon the motor vehicle, which is the
            subject matter of a retail installment transaction, is retained or
            taken by a retail seller from a retail buyer as security, in whole or
            in part, for the buyer's obligation. The term includes a chattel
            mortgage, a conditional sales contract and a contract for the
            bailment or leasing of a motor vehicle by which the bailee or lessee
            contracts to pay as compensation for its use a sum substantially
            equivalent to or in excess of its value and by which it is agreed
            that the bailee or lessee is bound to become, or has the option of
            becoming, the owner of the motor vehicle upon full compliance with
            the provisions of the contract.

Re:Another way to deal with the problem

[NormalVisual]

Thanks for the cite.

It's a safety thing.

[Anonymous Coward]

state law prohibits carmakers from selling directly to the public

Sure. Sure it is.

...AND THE HOME OF THE....BRAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAVE!

Re:OK, so set up a tiny company owned "dealership"

[__aaltlg1547]

That's prohibited under Iowa law.

Commerce among the several states

[tepples]

I think you know what lakeland meant. Commerce between Tesla, a corporation not headquartered in Iowa, and residents of Iowa is "commerce [...] among the several states", the regulation of which is explicitly within the enumerated powers of the Congress.

Re:Commerce among the several states

[sumdumass]

This isn't the first road block Tesla has had on these matters. I'm curious, why- with all that money at their disposal- did Tesla not bring this argument up at any of their other court cases? Are Tesla's lawyers incompetent or something? Are they taking bribes from big oil or something? Why is it that internet armchair lawyers have the answers before Tesla's bona fide bar members do?

Perhaps the problem is that even though it is within the enumerated powers of Congress, Congress has acted in ways that allow states like California to set laws more strict than the ones the federal government hands out (see Emissions and all). Or in other words, perhaps congress already enumerated and this is what we got.

Re:Commerce among the several states

[tepples]

Tesla probably didn't bring up the commerce clause earlier because it realized that in the absence of a federal preemption statute for a particular area of law, state law still governs. The specifics of lobbying for a preemption bill would depend on the results in state courts.

Either corporate or franchised dealers

[tepples]

If the intent is to prevent corporate-owned dealers from unfairly competing with franchised dealers of the same company's vehicles, then the laws ought to allow an automaker to have corporate-owned dealers or franchised dealers but not both. According to a recent Slashdot article, some states are enlightened enough to have such an either-or law.

Re:Either corporate or franchised dealers

[Frosty Piss]

There is no "right" to have a "franchised" dealer. That is something demanded by these laws.

Re:Either corporate or franchised dealers

[tepples]

Why did legislators chase to demand specifically a franchised dealer rather than an either-or law?

Across the state line

[tepples]

To drum up support for amending Iowa Code 322.3.14, would it work for Tesla to open dealerships along highways right across the state line from Iowa and advertise in the closest Iowa community to each such dealer?

Re:Across the state line

[Anonymous Coward]

Because Iowa doesn't have to let teslas in Just like California can reject cars from other states Unless you can prove you lived in that state for at least a year I believe.

Tesla should give their motor a rotor

[Mister Liberty]

and sail off to China.

Dealer as union

[tepples]

I think the "safety issues" are related to recalls, where the dealer acts as a buffer between the manufacturer and individual car owners. Conventional wisdom is that even if the manufacturer assumes an anti-consumer stance in a particular recall, the franchised dealer can bargain on behalf of car owners collectively.

Re:Dealer as union

[AK Marc]

Like Continental Subaru?

I had a problem with my brakes. On my Subaru Impreza WRX, they didn't work when I went over wet railroad tracks with the brakes applied (the ABS back-off algorithm wouldn't allow best braking). This would, on a road I regularly took, double my stopping distance. It was a major safety issue. When I noticed the problem, I looked online and found it a common problem. Subaru issued a voluntary recall to replace the ABS controller (the entire ECU, since they were linked). I called the dealer, scheduled the repair, gave the TSB number and confirmed they'd have the parts in. They called back "when the parts were in" and I took it in.

The next day, they called and asked me for the TSB number, as there were "no recalls for my vehicle". I took in two separate TSBs (the one I wanted, and one more I got that I didn't care about). They confirmed that there were, in fact, "TSBs" for my car, but the two I had marked "voluntary recall" were not recalls.

Despite giving the TSB number and indicating it was an ECU change and to not schedule me without having the parts in, I picked up my car that day, and waited another 3 months for them to get the part in. When it was finally changed (with a bill of $150 for warranty safety recall work done, because they needed to charge for their test-drive time), the car stopped much better, despite the TSB assuring me the NTSB didn't see any fault in the ABS, nor improvement with the new ECU. Apparently stopping with 100 ft to spare or rolling into an intersection because the brakes didn't work was all in my head.

But Thank God for Continental Subaru, who saw to my safety by scheduling me for a service without the parts on hand to complete it, being ignorant about what TSBs are issued for the cars they sell, arguing with me about which TSB I wanted done, and charging me for getting a safety recall done. Though I'm not sure a manufacturer could do any worse if they tried.

Let's just kill all these busybody fucks

[Anonymous Coward]

who gives them the right to take all these bribes to write laws for businesses? fuck-em. next time some smug asshole proposes a law telling people they can't do something that affects absolutely nobody fucking else just brain the fuck with a screwdriver and save the rest of us the trouble.

Capitalism?

[bubbha]

So is that Capitalism going on in Iowa? Why does somebody getting unemployment piss Iowans off....but car dealerships being protected form new competition does not piss Iowans off. Maybe Fox News tells Iowans when to be pissed off and when not to be pissed off.

They want the court fight

[Sycraft-fu]

They know this is an issue they'll win in the long run. There is no justification for the states doing what they are doing, they've just been paid off by the auto dealers. Tesla has won every fight about this I'm aware of. So they want it, they want to get this straightened out in the courts.

If you try to do something to skirt the law, you risk it biting you in the ass later. If you get a court ruling saying "You are allowed to do this, the state has to F off," then you are good to go.

Also, you might notice it gets them press. Nothing like looking like the poor trod on underdog to get more people sympathetic to your cause an interested in your product. They go about everything above board, get stepped on, fight back, win, and then get their way, plus good PR.

Have to take the long view on these things.

Re:They want the court fight

[Anonymous Coward]

Have to take the long view on these things.

But I need my bonus for this quarter!

Car dealerships are a blight on society

[MillionthMonkey]

Car dealerships have outlasted their usefulness- they're a 20th century solution for selling 20th century cars. If a Tesla can self-drive itself to my house, or if an Amazon quadcopter can drop it off here, car dealerships have no reason to be involved except for an old law that allows them to stifle competition and that will now be cemented into place.

Re:Car dealerships are a blight on society

[JimSadler]

It would be hard to find anything as corrupt as car dealerships were a few years ago. Ideas like simply having a fixed price on a car that could not be cut or raised never were put in place. The cost of a car was whatever you could be suckered into.

Not a safety thing.

[Anonymous Coward]

Drive to the next state over and get yours then :)

Re:OK, so set up a tiny company owned "dealership"

[jklovanc]

Iowa Code 322.3.14. A manufacturer or importer shall not directly or indirectly be licensed as, own an interest in, operate, or control a motor vehicle dealer.

Read it and weep ...

[CaptainDork]

... because it's illegal.

Nothing else matters at all. If it's against the law, then it is what it is.

Re:Read it and weep ...

[Areyoukiddingme]

... because it's illegal.

Nothing else matters at all. If it's against the law, then it is what it is.

What are you on about? Test drives are not illegal. Selling cars without being a dealer in Iowa is illegal. Tesla wasn't holding a sales event. They were offering test drives.

Let me explain it to you in small words, since you seem to have difficulty with the concept.

You get in the car. You drive it around. You drive it back to where you got it. You get out of the car. You give the keys back to the company representative^W^W guy from the company. You walk away. You do not get to keep the car.

See, was that so hard?

Re:Read it and weep ...

[CaptainDork]

What are you on about? Test drives are not illegal.

From TFS:

The Iowa Department of Transportation said the test drives were illegal for two reasons: ...

See, was that so hard?

Re:Read it and weep ...

[Areyoukiddingme]

The Iowa Department of Transportation said the test drives were illegal for two reasons: ...

See, was that so hard?

The Iowa Department of Transportation is not a judge. And they tend not to listen to their lawyers. We'll likely see what an actual judge thinks, before it's all over.

Re:Read it and weep ...

[Areyoukiddingme]

Oh, and the two quoted reasons? They're not a dealer and manufacturers can't sell cars.

They're not selling cars.

So who cares what some random bureaucrat thinks. The law doesn't say what the bureaucrat thinks it says. The law is quoted elsewhere in the thread. It does not forbid test drives. It's actually very simple language.

Re:Read it and weep ...

[CaptainDork]

Until then, Tesla has to cease and desist because what they were attempting to do is illegal, am I right?

Re:Read it and weep ...

[Anonymous Coward]

What are you on about? Test drives are not illegal.

From TFS:

The Iowa Department of Transportation said the test drives were illegal for two reasons: ...

See, was that so hard?

That's not evidence. Tesla is not based in Iowa so what Tesla does is interstate sales, also known as "interstate commerce" which is explicitly controlled by the feds. Iowa will not be able to keep those laws, they are not valid under the constitution.

Captcha "fleece"... amusing. Dealers are good at fleecing.

Re:Read it and weep ...

[CaptainDork]

Tesla seems to care. They are pissed that what they were attempting to do is illegal, so they are not doing it because Tesla cares, right?

Re:Read it and weep ...

[Patent Lover]

Tesla loses the 3 potential sales they had in the state. Poor bastards.

Re:Read it and weep ...

[Anonymous Coward]

how about you kill yourself so I never have to read something that dumb again?

Re:Read it and weep ...

[Attila Dimedici]

Until then, Tesla has to cease and desist because what they were attempting to do is illegal, am I right?

No, you are wrong. They had to cease and desist because a bureaucrat ruled that what they were doing was illegal...even though they were not doing what the law the bureaucrat based that ruling on said was the illegal act.
I will give you an example that may help you understand. I have a friend who made some renovations to a house he bought. The township building inspector came by and said, "These renovations were illegal because you didn't get a building permit. " Your answer would be, "See, what he did was illegal because the building inspector said it was illegal." However, my friend had a copy of the township ordnance on what types of renovations required a building permit. The township ordnance explicitly stated that you only needed a building permit if you increased the number of doors and/or windows or expanded the footprint of the house. My friend had decreased the number of doors and windows as part of his renovation and did not change the footprint of the house. The fact that a bureaucrat says that something is illegal does not meant that it is illegal.

Re:Read it and weep ...

[suutar]

Only licensed dealers may engage in the business of selling cars at retail. Test drives are probably considered to be part of that business; there's not many other cases where a company will lend you a vehicle for free to drive a couple of miles.

Re:Read it and weep ...

[Anonymous Coward]

you really are a subhuman piece of shit aren't you?

Re:Read it and weep ...

[Areyoukiddingme]

Only licensed dealers may engage in the business of selling cars at retail. Test drives are probably considered to be part of that business; there's not many other cases where a company will lend you a vehicle for free to drive a couple of miles.

But Tesla CAN'T sell cars in Iowa. There is no one from Tesla in Iowa who will take your money. So by definition Tesla test drives are not selling cars. There's guaranteed never to be a sale in Iowa.

Tesla's lawyer will no doubt dig up case law to that effect, but I don't see the need. It's black letter law. No Teslas are sold in Iowa, therefore Tesla's activities are not selling cars, therefore those activities are legal. Yes it's a loophole, but it's a legitimate loophole. You can promote whatever you like. It's just speech. Which is free. As long as no sale occurs in Iowa, the law isn't broken.

Re:Read it and weep ...

[mark-t]

Except the two reasons that they gave for that, that Tesla isn't licensed as an auto dealer in Iowa and state law prohibits carmakers from selling directly to the public, have do not mention test drives at all.... so why would they cite test drives being illegal for reasons that have nothing to do with test driving?

Just because the law they are citing as a reason may happen to be an actual law on the books doesn't mean that it should somehow be applicable to things that the law does not mention.

Unless there is also an Iowa statute which dictates that only those that have legal permission to sell a vehicle can have any authorization to permit a test drive of the vehicle, any other laws that they cite as reasons that such test drives may be illegal are completely irrelevant. And if such a statute existed, it is a rather important one to have left out, since the entire case that it would be illegal for Tesla to arrange such test drives depends on that pivotal point... if it even exists.

Re:Read it and weep ...

[CaptainDork]

FTFA:

State law requires auto dealers to be licensed, and by offering test drives, Tesla was acting as a dealer, Steier said.

Your analogy breaks down because you have a friend who had a copy of the ordinance that contradicted ...

Please cite the story about how Tesla presented documents that contradicted ...

They didn't. They simply complied with the law.

Re:Read it and weep ...

[CaptainDork]

State law requires auto dealers to be licensed, and by offering test drives, Tesla was acting as a dealer, Steier said.

Re:Read it and weep ...

[mark-t]

by offering test drives, Tesla was acting as a dealer, Steier said

While that might ordinarily be the case, unless there is some law of statute which says that only dealers can offer test drives in Iowa, his conclusion is fallacious.

I don't live in Iowa, but I happen to have personally met someone a couple of months ago who owns a Tesla Model S which he offered to let my wife and I test drive that he had absolutely no intention of selling. He wasn't offering to sell the car, but he was definitely arranging test drives for it. Steier's conclusion is false.

Re:Read it and weep ...

[CaptainDork]

While that might ordinarily be the case, unless there is some law of statute which says that only dealers can offer test drives in Iowa, his conclusion is fallacious.

Good point. There actually IS some law of [sic] statute which says that only dealers can offer test drives in Iowa.

You quoted it:

by offering test drives, Tesla was acting as a dealer, Steier said.

And you offer this contradiction:

He wasn't offering to sell the car, but he was definitely arranging test drives for it.

So, you're saying he wasn't acting like a dealer, so how is that relevant?

I repeat:

by offering test drives, Tesla was acting as a dealer, Steier said.

Re:Read it and weep ...

[Attila Dimedici]

First of all, my friend did NOT have a copy of the ordinance, he merely was aware of what the ordnance said. Second, Steier said that Tesla was acting as a dealer. The law at no place says that offering test drives makes one a dealer. It does not even say that offering test drives is illegal. Just because Steier says that it is illegal does NOT mean that it is illegal. It may be that a judge will agree with Steier, but until that happens it is not accurate to say that Tesla was doing something illegal. As a a matter of fact, I read the two laws and do not see any place in them where test drives are mentioned. You strike me as one of those people that believes that since the FCC is the Federal Communication Commission they have authority to regulate all forms of communication, even if Congress has passed no law giving them such authority. In this case, while the DOT has the authority to regulate automobile dealers, the law defines automobile dealers as those who offer automobiles for sale in the state. Tesla was not offering the cars for sale. They were merely offering test drives. The law does not specify that you must be a licensed dealer to offer test drives. The law specifies that you must be a licensed dealer in order to sell at retail automobiles. Whether or not Tesla was doing something illegal is up to a judge to decide, NOT up to the head of the DOT. Especially not when the law so clearly does not state that it was illegal. The only thing which dealers do which the law states that automobile manufacturers are not allowed to do is sell cars at retail in Iowa.

Re:Read it and weep ...

[jader3rd]

... because it's illegal.

Nothing else matters at all. If it's against the law, then it is what it is.

So the American Revolution was illegal and should have never happened because nothing else matters?

Re:Read it and weep ...

[CaptainDork]

You're finally getting it. I'm glad there's at least one person who know their history.

Not ONE unauthorized car dealer sold any automobiles during the entire American Revolution.

Good catch.

Re:Read it and weep ...

[CaptainDork]

I didn't read all of your post. I stopped at, "First of all, my friend did NOT have a copy of the ordinance, he merely was aware of what the ordnance said."

That "awareness," kills the rest of your non-argument.

Tesla knew damn well it was breaking the law. That's why they stopped.

Re:Read it and weep ...

[Attila Dimedici]

Where does the law say that they cannot offer test drives? I actually READ the law. It says that they cannot sell automobiles retail. It says nothing about test drives.

Re:Read it and weep ...

[CaptainDork]

Actually, it does.

FTFA:

State law requires auto dealers to be licensed, and by offering test drives, Tesla was acting as a dealer ...

Re:Read it and weep ...

[Attila Dimedici]

Actually, it does.

FTFA:

State law requires auto dealers to be licensed, and by offering test drives, Tesla was acting as a dealer ...

Actually, that is not anywhere in the law. As I said, I read the law. The law explicitly states that in order to sell cars retail, someone must be licensed by the DOT. That sentence you quoted is the interpretation of the DOT, NOT something written in the law.

Re:Read it and weep ...

[CaptainDork]

Interpretation would be an issue if the quote were:

Lut tiu bang òi hi nhng k buôn bán ma tuý t ng c cp phép, và bng cách a cho th nghim a cng, Tesla là hành ng nh mt ngi bán ...

For ease of understanding, here's that, interpreted:

State law requires auto dealers to be licensed, and by offering test drives, Tesla was acting as a dealer ...

Re:Read it and weep ...

[Attila Dimedici]

But the law never states that you must be a dealer to offer test drives. The law says that you must be a dealer to sell cars retail. The law does not say that a manufacturer may not offer test drives. So, to recap, the DOT has ruled that only licensed auto dealers may offer test drives. However, the state law does not say that it says that only licensed auto dealers may sell autos at retail.
Now I understand that progressives think that bureaucrats should be allowed to make the law say whatever they think is should say, but that is not how our system is supposed to work. There does exist an argument that supports the position taken by the DOT. However, until that argument is made in front of a theoretically impartial third party known as a judge and Tesla is allowed to make their counter-arguments it is not accurate to describe what Tesla was doing as illegal, since it does not violate the letter of the law.

Re:Read it and weep ...

[CaptainDork]

Your narrative does nothing to negate this (FTFA):

State law requires auto dealers to be licensed, and by offering test drives, Tesla was acting as a dealer ...

Re:Read it and weep ...

[Attila Dimedici]

That statement is the OPINION of the DOT. There is NO place in the law which states that offering test drives makes one an auto dealer. In fact, the law states that selling cars retail makes one an auto dealer. Tesla was not selling cars retail in the state.
The article could say this: "State law requires pharmacists to be licensed, and by giving George aspirin, Henry was acting as a pharmacist," but that would not necessarily make it true (even if that statement was made by a state official).

Re:Read it and weep ...

[CaptainDork]

As to whether or not state law requires auto dealers to be licensed, and by offering test drives, Tesla was acting as a dealer, we could research to see if any recently relevant literature exists on the matter and find an article here that says, "State law requires auto dealers to be licensed, and by offering test drives, Tesla was acting as a dealer ..."

Re:Read it and weep ...

[Attila Dimedici]

You keep quoting most of that sentence while leaving out the key part that comes at the end ""...Tesla was acting as a dealer, Steier said." It does not matter how many times nor in how many articles the opinion of Paul Steier is quoted, it does not change the fact that the law does not actually say that. You appear to be basing your argument on, "They published it in the newspaper. It must be true."
I will try one more time. The article links to the relevant law. You can read that law for yourself. I did. The relevant law says that in order to sell automobiles at retail in Iowa someone must be a licensed dealer. It does not say that in order to "act as a dealer" one must be licensed. It says that in order to sell one must be licensed. So, the wording of the law does not say that someone must be licensed as a dealer in order to conduct test drives anymore than someone must be licensed as a dealer to make repairs on a car. Dealers do that as well, so that you could say "State law requires auto dealers to be licensed, and by offering to repair cars, the local mechanic was acting as a dealer." It still would not mean there was a legal requirement to be licensed as an auto dealer in order to repair cars, no matter how many times someone from the DOT said it. Read the law, it does not say what the DOT spokesman said.

Re:Read it and weep ...

[mark-t]

My point is that a person does not have to be a dealer to offer a test drive of a vehicle. It might very well be on their agenda to ultimately sell a car to that person, or hope that the person will buy a car like the one they have test driven, but in no way, shape, or form does merely offering a test-drive actually constitute identifying directly as someone who works for or is even necessarily affiliated with a dealership, let alone "acting like one".

When I am going to buy a car in a private sale, I'll ask to test drive the car before I buy it as well... is the private seller acting like a dealership?

Re:Read it and weep ...

[Anonymous Coward]

You're arguing with an idiot. He keeps quoting 'what Steier said' as if it was part of the statue, when it is *Steier's opinion* even though it has been repeatedly pointed out that Steier's opinion (or for that matter Tesla's opinion) does *not* form part of the law. The situation is quite simple: In Court, Steier would argue that test drives are illegal, Tesla (if they considered it strategically appropriate to take this to court) would argue that test drives were not illegal. Until there is such a court case and it and any appeals are resolved it is *impossible* to say with any certainty whether test drives are illegal or not. But as I said, you (and others) are repeatedly arguing the same point with this idiot (or troll or whatever).

Re:Read it and weep ...

[mark-t]

What the article says is this:

State law requires auto dealers to be licensed, and by offering test drives, Tesla was acting as a dealer, Steier said. There are actually three specific things being said here... Two of them are true, and the other is false, and it is important to not conflate them.

The first true thing is that Iowa state law requires auto dealers to be licensed. Nobody is arguing with you about this.

The second true thing, which happens to be an assumption made by the statement quoted above, but which happens to be still factually correct is that Tesla was offering test drives.

The false part is that by offering test drives, Tesla are somehow acting like a dealership. What Steier said about it being illegal would only be true if it were actually a requirement by law or statute that only dealerships could offer test drives, but since offering a test drive of a car amounts to nothing more than briefly lending that car to somebody else, they would basically have to outlaw anyone but the licensed owner of a vehicle driving that vehicle. Even if they *DID* make such a law, no such law currently exists, and so what Tesla is doing is not actually illegal, even though some person who is not a judge might say that it is.

Re:Read it and weep ...

[mark-t]

Slashdot doesn't allow me to go back and correct things like mismatched html tags if I accidentally hit POST too soon, but it should hopefully be clear that the only part of the above that should be quoted is:

State law requires auto dealers to be licensed, and by offering test drives, Tesla was acting as a dealer, Steier said.

Re:Read it and weep ...

[david_thornley]

Does this holy Steier have words of wisdom on other topics that we might learn from him?

Or, for that matter, what is his judicial appointment? State supreme court? County court? Something else? That would qualify him to speak on what the law means.

In the absence of divine enlightenment or judicial appointment, it would appear that Steier was making a statement about the law that is as authoritative as one I (or mark-t) might make.

Re:Read it and weep ...

[mark-t]

They were offering test drives, which is not illlegal. they are not licensed to sell their cars in the state is not relevant because they were not selling their cars, and the allegation that by offering test drives, Tesla is somehow "acting" in the same capacity as if they were a dealer in that state only has a resemblance to reality in that Tesla was actually offering test drives...but there is no law or requirement that only licensed car dealerships may offer test drives, so the allegation that offering test drives makes them somehow equatable to such a dealer is false. Tesla stopped because they had a C&D issued against them, because this person believes that they are breaking the law by doing what they are doing,not because they actually *ARE* breaking the law. Even though that belief is invalid, the C&D is still legitimate, and acting without regard for it before it has been successfully challenged could land them a lot of legal hot water, even if they did not otherwise break any laws which are being alleged by the C&D.

And even if Tesla does not get a license to sell cars in Iowa, they will still end up being able to successfully challenge this C&D unless a new law is added to Iowa's books that states that only licensed dealers may publicly offer test drives of vehicles. It's worth nothing that there is currently no such law, however... so what Tesla was doing was still most definitely not illegal.

Re:Read it and weep ...

[CaptainDork]

You say it's not illegal and then offer arguments.

By way of rebuttal, I offer this:

State law requires auto dealers to be licensed, and by offering test drives, Tesla was acting as a dealer, ...

Re:Read it and weep ...

[mark-t]

Incorrect. You keep quoting part of the article, but are missing two extremely important words.

State law requires auto dealers to be licensed, and by offering test drives, Tesla was acting as a dealer, Steier said.

Steier saying something does not make it illegal. Breaking the law does. I'll break it down for you,. since you seem to have difficulty understanding.

State law requires auto dealers to be licensed.

State law does not say anything along the lines that someone who offers a test drive is behaving like an auto dealer, therefore the allegation that "by offering test drives,Tesla was acting like a dealer" has no legal merit. It's not that they weren't offering test drives. They were... but doing so without a dealership license does not mean they were trying to behave like a dealer in that state, so no law was actually being broken. Steier's allegation that they were behaving like a dealer is false, and without any brand new law being passed in Iowa which forbids anyone but auto dealers offering test drives, this C&D could be easily fought and won by Tesla.

Re:Read it and weep ...

[CaptainDork]

You say it's not illegal and then offer arguments.

By way of rebuttal, I offer this:

State law requires auto dealers to be licensed, and by offering test drives, Tesla was acting as a dealer, ...

Right?

Re:Read it and weep ...

[mark-t]

Except that rebuttal is only what Steier *SAID*, and part of what he was saying isn't even actually true (it's true that he said it, of course, but what he was alleging is untrue) so the rebuttal is not logically valid.

It is true that Tesla was offering test drives. This is not illegal.

It is true that State law requires auto dealers to be licensed, and that Tesla does not have a license to be a dealer in Iowa.

What is *NOT* true is that by offering test drives, Tesla was acting like a dealer, because no provision in Iowa requires that one *BE* a dealer to offer test drives.

You keep quoting what Steier said, except that what he was alleging about Tesla "acting like a dealer" is not valid because no provision requires that one be a dealer to offer test drives. Repeatedly quoting somebody who has been clearly shown to be factually incorrect about this point does not make it any more true.

Re:Read it and weep ...

[jaygridley]

Iowa Code 322.2

7.“Engaged in the business” means doing any of the following acts for the purpose of the sale of motor vehicles at retail: acquiring, selling, exchanging, holding, offering, displaying, brokering, accepting on consignment, conducting a retail auction, or acting as an agent for the purpose of doing any of those acts. A person selling at retail more than six motor vehicles during a twelve-month period may be presumed to be engaged in the business.

So it may all be in the definitions...

Re:Read it and weep ...

[CaptainDork]

If you read the words carefully, one more time, perhaps you'll come to understand that Tesla packed up and went home when they found out that:

State law requires auto dealers to be licensed, and by offering test drives, Tesla was acting as a dealer, ...

Car dealer: money-media nexus in local politics

[pupsocket]

Advertising revenues from local news is the largest source of income for most local television network affiliates and local car dealerships are the foundation of their revenues. (TV stations get little or nothing for carrying national programming, just the right to borrow the audience for a couple of hours.)

Local television economics is a political protection racket with car dealers as the collection point for funds, precisely as kings and shahs and sultans handed out exclusive franchises for cloths and dyes and wines and every manner of goods.

Car dealers fund a local-news system that ensures that Congressional representatives and state governments are rarely reported on.

Threaten laws protecting car dealers, and get you a lot of enemies who don't want to show their faces.

Re:Car dealer: money-media nexus in local politics

[Anonymous Coward]

Hmm. Sounds kinda like Yelp! ??? In a bad way.

Meanwhile in California......

[haruchai]

Gov Jerry Brown signs 6 bills in favor of EVs

http://www.greencarreports.com...

The public / customers are not property

[Anonymous Coward]

These states and the dealerships/dealerships lobbyists need to get their noses out of where they don't belong. I'm sure if Tesla put their dealerships on the borders, anyone who wanted to buy one would cross state lines for it.

So, import it

[brunes69]

Why wouldn't someone from Iowa just buy the Tesla from a neighboring state and import it... Iowa loses out on the sales tax because they are being stubborn.

Re:So, import it

[Anonymous Coward]

Why wouldn't someone from Iowa just buy the Tesla from a neighboring state and import it... Iowa loses out on the sales tax because they are being stubborn.

I don't know about Iowa, but in Massachusetts if you buy a car in New Hampshire (which has no sales tax), when you register the car in Massachusetts you must pay Massachusetts sales tax.

Of course if you're a Massachusetts resident you can register the car in New Hampshire and drive it in Massachusetts, but there's a penalty if you get caught.

Re:So, import it

[Anonymous Coward]

how are laws like that even legal? why don't we just throw people on the guillotine after coming up with evil shit like that?

Re:So, import it

[Attila Dimedici]

As the anonymous coward pointed out, most states(I believe that it is all states, but there may be exceptions) require you to pay their sales tax on a car to register it in that state. There are special exceptions if you have owned the car long enough before moving to the state in question (I believe that is typically a year, but I have not looked at that clause for some time).

Re:So, import it

[suutar]

Not necessarily. Some states (I know CA, and someone else mentioned Massachusetts) will consider a car that enters the state less than X years/miles after purchase to be taxable (although CA, at least, considers how much sales tax you paid in the state you bought it as part of the calculation of how much you owe in CA sales tax.)

Re:So, import it

[Anonymous Coward]

Because someone from Iowa was unable to conveniently test drive the Tesla when the state banned the test driving event, so now someone from Iowa is not sure if he wants to buy it or not.

Re:So, import it

[Kernel Kurtz]

Why wouldn't someone from Iowa just buy the Tesla from a neighboring state and import it...

For the current high end cars Tesla makes this probably works most of the time. They are fighting it, but it is not killing them. If you can afford one you can afford a bit extra to fly somewhere else to test and/or pay for delivery. Your own state still may or may not screw you on the taxes.

As they seek to move down market to the masses that will not work as well. Their current business model is not suffering, but their future one will.

Wait, what?

[MaizeMan]

You are right, the first state outside of New England to legalize gay marriage, which has also voted for a republican for president exactly once in the last three decades, is clearly on the right wing of politics in the USA.

Re:Wait, what?

[Anonymous Coward]

Gay marriage was decided by a judge, not the voters, as I recall but yeah, it's very moderate.

WTF

[Anonymous Coward]

What kind of lame-ass, kindergarten bullshit is this? Tesla "isn't licensed as an auto dealer" and car makers are prohibited by law from selling to the public? Who the hell came up with these rules? [Detroit] What public good is served by them? [GM]

GIVE US ELECTRIC CARS ALREADY!

That tasty forbidden fruit.

[seoras]

More good news for Elon. Telling folks what they can't buy, and making it hard for them to get, just makes it all the more exotic and tempting.

No one enjoys the pressure and pain of car showroom shopping. It's just not consumer friendly.
Yet consumers don't have the right or ability to indicate their distaste.

Besides the electric card appeals to the renegades, the rebels at heart who would be more likely to buy those cars anyway.
So the more corporate backed legislatives try to ban them the more sales they are going to get.

If they really wanted to hurt Tesla they'd just ignore them and not give them air time.

Just ask any neighboring state

[Anonymous Coward]

IOWA = Idiots Out Walking Around

Excpet now it'll be literal, since they won't be driving Teslas...

Amazon Car Service

[CrashNBrn]

Hmmm Amazon Car Service...I've never thought about that.

It would go something like this:

1) File Service Ticket online & Describe Issue.
2) Repair Service comes to pick up or tow the car.
3) A temporary car is left for you to use in the interim.
4) When the car is fixed you get an invoice.
5) When paying the bill, you choose delivery time within 2-24 hours (when you will be home).
6) Car is returned. Temporary vehicle is picked up.

Err... a few years ago?

[Anonymous Coward]

Did something change and I missed it? The very few "one price" dealers I've ever come across have either set that one price high, or (actually in almost all cases) it was actually just a myth in that the one price is the base price and then they try to ream you on the options and make it almost impossible to say no to the extra service or warranty plan, gap insurance, etc (sometimes "accidentally" putting it in contract there and not even mentioning it unless you explicitly notice and ask to have it removed), or there's actually wiggle room in the "one price" if you're shrewd enough. None seemed all that much better than the "how much do you have in your bank account" pricing except in the worst cases and with the most naive customers who actually would do better with the "one price" than without it due to not getting ripped off _quite_ as badly.

Political Wipe Out.

[Anonymous Coward]

The more big government actively suppresses the free market like this, the more people vote against big government.

Jerry Brown's declared suppression of Uber and Lyft will also reap the same rewards.

Tick tick tick....

Tesla...

[Issarlk]

"so good it's illegal !"

Re:No wonder Arizona and Texas didn't win Gigafact

[drinkypoo]

Did those states think they had a chance when they support that crooked business cronyism?

alternately, were those states only considered to begin with to rub their noses in the potential loss of business?

Tesla should partner with body shops

[Anonymous Coward]

Tesla could partner with independent "high end" body shops and provide a single Tesla to share between them. Provide a Tesla as an award to those body shops that result in multiple sales. Make refurbished Teslas awards to that one shop that exceeded all others in sales.

Hypocrisy at its finest

[ninjaboy88]

Because no company has EVER been allowed to sell they're products directly to a customer... Coughstarbucks,inandout,almostallutilitycompanies,chipotlecough

Tesla v Iowa?

[Anonymous Coward]

Seems incredible that Iowa or any State could be so scared to try to hold back the tide.
This smacks of pressure being brought to bear by the big manufacturers with a market to protect.
Elon Musk knows if he took it Court he would probably win again, but why bother when public demand
for cheaper running costs makes Ford, GM and the rest provide vehicles at least as efficient.

Take a trip to a state that is Tesla friendly

[Anonymous Coward]

No problem, I'll just fly to a state that is Tesla friendly and test drive it there. Heck, maybe even move there, why would I want to be in a state that's so restrictive?

Thanks Cuomo.

No wonder Arizona and Texas didn't win Gigafactory

[Anonymous Coward]

Arizona is turning into the liberal mecca of the southwest. Too bad.
Thanks Mexico.

Heh... As if there was really a negotiable price.

[Anonymous Coward]

There's a price unto which there is no lower without violating anti-dumping statutes and the like.

As it stands now, there's largely only one price that's there and it's ultimately not very negotiable- and you've got the middleman taking his cut of the pie there. It doesn't make for "competition" like they're bullshitting there. It just runs up the price.

If Tesla cars ran on pure ethonol

[Anonymous Coward]

If Tesla cars ran on Pure Ethonol, Iowa politicions would be creaming thier corn to get the laws changed and let people test drive a Tesla.

Not the first time this law has come up

[jaygridley]

There was an incident a few years ago where the Iowa DOT refused to title a city fire truck because the company that assembled the truck (Toyne Inc in Breda, IA) was not a "licensed franchised dealer'' of the company that built the chassis (HME). http://www.messengernews.net/p...

Re:OK, so set up a tiny company owned "dealership"

[Anonymous Coward]

The idea that there are state laws identifying how a car manufacturer cannot sell directly to the public is frankly horseshit. If I make a product, like a car, and it conforms to federal guidelines, then why is the state blocking me from selling it within that state? Protectionist laws that make it so that a company like Tesla cannot operate in a state like Iowa that has these laws to protect the middle-man, aka dealers/dealerships is wrong. This is not how a market should operate. Let the market decide on which model it wants to purchase from. Frankly, I think all automakers should be able to sell directly to the public and if Tesla fights this, and they should, and win, then I think it will set an excellent precedent to allow automakers to shove dealerships aside and do direct business with customers. They can set up there own sales centers and direct repair support.

legal v. moral

[Anonymous Coward]

The problem boils down to this: Tesla's business model violates laws in several states. Said laws are the result of lobbying on the part of car dealerships. The current political system has its lapses in morality, however this does not give Tesla legal grounds to operate in said states. The laws them selves are constiutional and sound, Tesla is unwilling to play the game, if they want to continue to operate they need to challenge the system which made the laws not the laws them selves.

Re:legal v. moral

[Anonymous Coward]

The laws them selves are constiutional and sound,

Evidence? Any SCOTUS cites etc.?

Nope...

That's nothing

[LordWabbit2]

Where I live (South Africa) the car manufacturers were accused of price fixing and fined. Didn't bring down the price of cars though. One guy found it was cheaper to fly to Australia, buy his car there and have it shipped back to South Africa. The car is made here, in Port Elizabeth.

Re:OK, so set up a tiny company owned "dealership"

[Nethemas the Great]

Iowan law presently prohibits manufactures from obtaining a dealer's license.

Tesla is wrong, sue away and we'll take their $$

[Anonymous Coward]

They just need to follow the laws and they could sell here in Iowa. Any car company has to have a location (dealer) that has the ability to repair their vehicles and deal with local complaints. You can't sue a california company for breaking Iowa laws in california. When Tesla sells an Iowan a piece of shit, Iowa courts can't remedy the situation. They law is fine. Tesla is wrong.

I want to know why the hell they haven't opened a dealer here. How hard is it? seriously It seems like they have the idea that they can sneak around consumer protection laws because 2???? 3 Profit. underpants gnomes or whatever

Iowans are not forbidden from going to California and test driving away. Any future problems are their responsibility to be dealt with in California.

Re:OK, so set up a tiny company owned "dealership"

[jaygridley]

Which would also fail under Iowa law.