Utah Supreme Court Ruling Bars Direct Sales of Teslas Through a Subsidiary (arstechnica.com)

The Utah Supreme court has ruled on Monday that the state's regulators could prohibit an auto manufacturer from having ownership interest in a dealer. "In what the court called 'a narrow, legal decision,' it said that it wouldn't weigh in on whether allowing the state's Tax Commission to prohibit direct sales from Tesla's wholly owned subsidiary was the best policy for residents of Utah," reports Ars Technica. "Instead, the court said its job was simply to determine whether the commission could legally make that prohibition." From the report: Tesla created its subsidiary, Tesla UT, to be able to sell new cars in Utah, but the State Tax Commission ruled that the subsidiary needed a franchise agreement. Tesla UT entered into a partnership with its parent company, but the commission said Tesla couldn't have a financial interest in Tesla UT's franchise. According to the Salt Lake Tribune, "Attempts were made in 2015 and 2016 to change Utah law to accommodate Tesla, but the car dealers and other automakers rebuffed the efforts." A Tesla spokesperson told Ars, "The Utah ruling is disappointing for Tesla and all Utah consumers interested in consumer choice, free markets, and sustainable energy. We will pursue all options to ensure that Tesla can operate in Utah without restriction. In the meantime, we will continue to provide service and limited sales activities (through our used car license) at our location in South Salt Lake City."

Comments

Wheb you can't beat 'em

[Ol Olsoc]

Make them illegal.

Thank God that the deep red state of Utah, is showing how the free market is supposed to operate.

Re:Wheb you can't beat 'em

[El Cubano]

is showing how the free market is supposed to operate

Well, the court decision in this case shows how a court should function: rule on the merits of the case and the letter of the law, not on what they think the legislature meant, or on how they would prefer to see things.

That said, the law in this case is clearly anti-consumer, but that is a matter for the voters and their elected representatives.

Re:Wheb you can't beat 'em

[ArmoredDragon]

I say that a court should look for JUSTICE and not the letter of the law. If a law is just 90% of the time, then a case should be dismissed 10% of the time. Because it is not just in that case. Strict interpretation is wrong.

That's not how courts work, and it's certainly not how they should work. Anything else is altering the laws with complete disregard for the process that they were created to begin with, and you may as well not even have judges and just let legislators both write laws and interpret them. Furthermore, you'd end up with highly inconsistent rulings and your legal system more or less would fail to serve any useful purpose.

Not that I agree with this particular law.

Dealers are Leeches

[number17]

Here are the benefits of a dealer network as provided by the National Automobile Dealers Association:

1) Better pricing when there are lots of dealers in your location. Bad pricing when there few. 2) Manufactures gain free distribution channel that they would otherwise have to pay for themselves.

All I see is a non-efficient layer that extracts profits by jacking up prices.

Devil's Advocate?

[WhatsGoodman]

Does anyone actually believe, or at least legitimately understand the position, that auto manufacturers should not be able to sell directly to consumers? I'm genuinely curious. There are many cases of seemingly anti-consumer regulation where I can at least comprehend the logic of the other side (net neutrality being the first that comes to mind), but in this case I don't see anyone benefiting from this regulation other than entrenched dealership groups.