Michigan Officials Deny Allegations That State Treats Tesla Unfairly



Tesla CEO Elon Musk

Tesla CEO Elon Musk will take the direct sales case to U.S. federal court if results in Michigan are not in Tesla’s favor

After  many efforts to try to convince Michigan officials to allow Tesla to sell ITS cars in the state, Tesla finally had to file a lawsuit against Michigan. This is not only due to the state practicing laws that Tesla sees as unconstitutional, but also because the state went so far as to add legislation “tweaks” to make it even more difficult for Tesla to move forward. Elon Musk and company have referred to said tweaks as the “Anti-Tesla bill.” According to The Detroit News, state officials are denying unfair treatment.

Tesla Model 3

Reservation holders in Michigan will have to venture outside the state to take delivery of the Tesla Model 3

Tesla just opened a mini-showroom in a Nordstrom store at the upscale Somerset Mall in Troy, Michigan. The company can show the car, but that’s about it.

The state’s official response to Tesla’s recent filing is that a 2014 provision to the state’s dealership laws weren’t intended to “block” Tesla. The state does admit that prior to the amendment, Tesla was already restricted by former laws that have been in place for years. The state reported:

“The statutory scheme that plaintiff claims discriminates against plaintiff has existed in its current form since before plaintiff existed as a company.”

Tesla disagrees, and argures that dealers were rewarded for lobbying against Tesla. More specifically, GM went to great lengths to assure that the amendment was put in place. GM CEO Mary Barra has publicly ridiculed and attacked Tesla in the past.

The more interesting piece of the puzzle is that Michigan officials are telling the public that Tesla has never actually asked to sell its vehicles in Michigan. Instead, Tesla has requested to operate its own “dealerships” (which caused confusion, as Tesla does not use the dealership model, and instead, sells directly via showrooms and the internet). The problem that the state continues to address is that the law only allows for the selling of vehicles through “franchised dealerships.” Tesla responded:

“If it’s the state’s position that Tesla can sell its cars directly to consumers, Tesla welcomes that opportunity and invites the state to work with us so that we can start serving our customers in Michigan as soon as possible.”

Prior to the 2014 amendment, it appeared to Tesla that it would avoid the state’s restrictions if the company opened a dealership of its own, instead of its usual gallery/showroom. Michigan Governor Rick Snyder has been conveniently avoiding any involvement in the problem. When asked how he feels about Tesla opening a gallery in Michigan, even though it can’t sell its cars in the state. He responded:

 “That’s a whole issue that I’ve said would be a good topic for the Legislature to look at, to say what about new manufacturers and those issues. I would encourage our Legislature to look at when they deem appropriate.”

However, the amendment that Snyder signed in October of 2014 makes it against the law for Tesla to directly sells ITS cars in Michigan. The law, backed wholeheartedly by the large automakers and the franchised dealerships, closed a “loophole” that may have allowed Tesla to move forward. Since then, the Secretary of State has denied Tesla a new dealership license and a used dealership license. Tesla has noted such a loophole in other state’s legislation, and used it in the company’s favor in the past.

Snyder sees the law as “clarifying and strengthening” prior legislation. The original law stated that automakers can’t sell NEW vehicles directly to consumers without a dealership. The changed law states that an automaker can’t sell ITS vehicles without a franchised dealership. Hmm …

Source: The Detroit News

Categories: Tesla

Tags: , , , , , , ,

Leave a Reply

85 Comments on "Michigan Officials Deny Allegations That State Treats Tesla Unfairly"

newest oldest most voted

Let the hearings begin!


IT’S “TOTAL “BS”…& AGAINST ALL OF THE USA So CALLED “FREE ENTERPRISE”…Dictatorship is alive & well right in the “USA”


Inside voice little fella…No one is trying to hurt you. You can relax now.

0k , Mr. Crooked Politician , dealer , or auto maker …who ever you maybe …I will relax , only because you asked me to relax …BIG GUY!!! lmao

Thanks jimi. I’m just a regular guy who likes peace and quiet. None of the listed categories. I’ll have a beer for ya.

Thx. Mr Danger , Enjoy two or three for me. Peace on Earth …Merry Xmas…

That is his inside voice. Well at least the voice(s) inside his head.

All caps is harder to read.

I suspect your arguments will be taken more seriously if you write more “normally”.

Come onnnnn,,, the random CAPS seem to be the cherry on top of … the CRAZY sundae!

I think that at the end of the day the Michigan legislators are going to wind up on the wrong side of History I think the tide will roll over them

Kind of like The Alabama Crimson Tide rolling all over Michigan State, earlier this year in the Largest Shutout in The History of The Cotton Bowl, dating all the way back to 1937! Tide – 38 / Spartans – ZIP!

We will have a new Governor in 2018. Maybe that will help.

It is honorable to compete in the market. This move by GM smacks of crony capitalism.

GM is the beneficiaries of the auto bailout to the tune of billions of dollars. They also, with LG, received hundreds of millions for the battery plant in Michigan (roughly 50% of the price tag is paid by taxpayers). We keep hearing about how much Tesla received in subsidies, but GM, Ford, and FCA have received tremendous amounts of subsidies for companies that are supposively mature and capable of massive profits.

+ 10000000000000000000000000000000000000

+ 10000000000000000000000000000000000001



Time travel, anyone? 🙂

Ford never took a dime of TARP money.

That’s a technicality that ignores the larger point. While Ford didn’t take money specifically from the TARP program, they did take a very low-cost loan of nearly $6 billion from the government to transform several of their factories.

So Ford did, in fact, benefit from government financial assistance in the form of a loan they couldn’t get elsewhere, the low-cost nature of which absolutely makes it a subsidy. They also lobbied hard for TARP and for cash-for-clunkers, both of which while not directly helping Ford, did help their industry.


Maybe Elon’s latest idea of building tunnels is a solution. The law says selling cars in Michingan. Doesn’t say “under”…

It went down, down, down; a burning ring of fire!

Maybe Elon should get some rappers on board since Johnny Cash has moved on!

Anyone ready to write a Tesla Rap about Michigan?

Why not sell Ford GM FCA used products for say $80,000 each. And with each sale you get a free Tesla model S or X. It says you can’t sell your product not someone else’s. There’s something satisfying to giving a social disease to those who are trying to screw you.

But those are the same ICE Vehicles you want to get off the roads and stop adding to the atmosphere’s carbon burden….

Hate GM’s dirty backroom politics? Vote with your Wallet. Get a Tesla.

“Hate GM’s dirty backroom politics? Vote with your Wallet. Get a Tesla.”

+1 – Vote with your wallet!

I’m guessing households making $40k/year can’t afford a $100k car.

Supporting Tesla doesn’t mean you have to spend $70k plus on a NEW Tesla, it just means you shouldn’t buy a new ICE car. Used Teslas are hitting the market everyday, and soon enough, there will be used Model 3’s that are affordable.

Is the law specific in that the used vehicle has to be operable? So you buy a used without engine. Problem solved.
And why not just put the Tesla show room the border? Make it easy for the Michigan buyers to get their Tesla.
And, really, why doesn’t Tesla just endorse some dealerships in these obtuse states? Ultimately, they either own their store, or they control the dealership, same outcome.

Why not donating a free Tesla car to anybody in Michigan who buys a Tesla T shirt for 100.000.

Which part of the Constitution does Tesla think this violates? Hmm. They say due process, equal protection and commerce clauses. Heh. Tesla claims they sell their cars at uniform and transparent prices. It’ll be interesting if that comes up in court. I know a dozen people who were called with individual, non-publicized discounts during the big push last quarter. And given Tesla down below makes the argument they can’t franchise in any state because the franchise would pay the same prices as any other buyer and thus have no margin it’s quite possible this will come up. Clause #6 transparently undercuts their argument that the law prohibits them from doing business. They have a business model that is prohibited. No one can use that business model. And Tesla is free to use the other business models others use. This is a power move by the franchised dealers. They don’t want to be cut out. But given Tesla would never locate a store (sales or repair) north of Saginaw (or likely even Flint) it’s not a slam dunk to say that factory-owned distribution/sales isn’t in the best interest of the citizens of the state. Tesla will have some competition soon from… Read more »

I’m sure anyone can get certain services done on Tesla cars in Michigan, just like anywhere else. Lots of things don’t require hooking the car up to a diagnostic computer. Any shop should be able to handle rotating or replacing tires, or a front end alignment, or windshield wiper or brake pad replacement, or any number of other things you can name.

I’m also sure that Tesla isn’t going to give access to its proprietary software to any unauthorized shop, just like any and all auto makers these days.

Requiring a license to do business is certainly within the constitution, but only if that license is reasonable to access for everyone. Requiring a special business arrangement to get a license is clearly unconstitutional, since it effectively restricts who can do business in the state. If a license is non-transferable because “we already have sufficient number of car dealerships”, then the imposition clearly stops, not just hinders, the ability to freely do business.

This isn’t denying certain groups, it’s having requirements to get a license. It’s not specific to Tesla, just they don’t want to change their business model.

And I don’t know about total limits on dealers, but if there are I doubt there would be a problem. There are caps on number of liquor licenses and transferrability of those all the time.

It’s very specific to Tesla. Didn’t you read the article?

I read the article. It is not specific to Tesla. It is specific to a business model. This is the business model Tesla uses, and not by coincidence.

But regardless, the dealers are interested in preserving the independent dealer model. And they have allies in the government. So the law was modified to even further keep companies from selling cars directly in Michigan.

Anyone who sells directly can’t sell. Anyone who uses dealers can sell to dealers. This includes Tesla, Chrysler, Mercedes, etc.

Since you clearly missed parts of the article, let me help you out there:

“…the amendment that Snyder signed in October of 2014 makes it against the law for Tesla to directly sells [sic] ITS cars in Michigan.”


“…the Secretary of State has denied Tesla a new dealership license and a used dealership license.”


“Anyone who sells directly can’t sell.”

That includes Tesla, no?

That is pretty much Tesla, so far, no?

Yes, the law isn’t aimed at Tesla but impact Tesla the most.

It also eliminates all future 3rd world country auto companies from entering the US without dealership also.

It protects the established automakers.

Easy there, Tesla is “going to save the world” so they should get special consideration against the other automakers – because his Majesty Elon Musk says it’s unconstitutional not to.
Of course, boring holes in the planet might do some damage, but Elon says it’s good.

No need for ‘special consideration’ at all. Just put the law back to as it read prior to October 2014 when signed by Governor Rick Snyder. Claiming that the law has remained ‘in its current form’ since 2000 completely obfuscates the modifications made in 2014.

The commerce clause!Graham vs Heald was the basis of the Michigan wine shipping,which the state of Michigan fought all the way to the supreme court and lost! Thanks Ken Starr.

Tesla is free to sell to Tesla-only franchised dealerships just like every other automaker, Detroit or not. Instead it is being extremely stubborn and insists on “our way or no way”, and pumps all kinds of psychopaths how world evils conspired against them.

They will never be able to sell & service 0.5+ million cars per year anyway using current Tesla shops & service centers if you believe 0.5 mln in 2018 story, they will need rapid expansion and cooperation with franchises and third party capital for that. But no, they still want to wage some crusade against states and pump conspiracy theories as much as possible.

There’s nothing wrong with challenging the status-quo. If we never challenge or change anything, how would anything ever improve?

IMO, the franchise dealerships are just as or more unethical as the manufacturers these laws are meant to protect us from. Since franchise dealerships end up creating another layer of customer financial fleecing, exactly what are the franchise dealerships “protecting” us from?

There are a large number of people who are unhappy with the “franchise dealership” model. It’s been my experience that Franchise Dealerships suck! I’m ready for a change. If franchise dealerships really do offer benefits over manufacturer direct sales/service model, then let the free market decide. If it’s true, franchise dealerships will win over the direct manufacturer model.

Exactly! Problem is, it isn’t true, and the dealership organizations are entirely aware of that fact. The direct sales model is vastly more efficient than using ‘independent franchised dealerships’. Last year the Tesla Model S outsold every single passenger car offered by Cafillac. Even with less than 100 Tesla Stores/Galleries open in only 24 States, compared to the 900+ Cadillac locations nationwide. During 2018 Tesla may be able to outsell all of Buick and Cadillac combined once these restrictions are removed. Tesla deserves the right to prove themselves right, and all Naysayers wrong, if they can.

It’s not a mere “conspiracy theory” when the State Association of Auto Dealers really is conspiring to keep you out of the State.

Nor should the laws intended to protect auto dealership franchises from the predatory business practices some auto manufacturers have actually used in the past, be allowed to prevent Tesla or any other auto maker from selling cars in any State without using the franchise system. The laws were never intended to prevent that, and it’s a perversion of such laws to use them to block Tesla’s sales.

As to your assertion that Tesla will be forced to move to a traditional franchise system to support a large volume of sales, one only needs to look at the success of Amazon.com and Apple Computers to see that’s flatly untrue.

One reason Tesla has been able to successfully compete against larger and long-established auto makers is because they have cut out the middleman, the parasitic drain of the franchise auto dealership. I don’t see Tesla shooting itself in the foot by taking on the dead weight of the outmoded, and probably soon to be obsolete, franchise dealership system.

They’re not conspiring to keep Teslas out of the state. They are conspiring against maker-owned dealerships and direct sales. If Tesla wants to license dealers I’m sure the dealers would love it.

You didn’t bother to read the article, did you? Tesla did apply for a regular dealership license, and was denied that too.

Because the law requires dealers not be manufacturer-owned. They must be franchised.

As I said, they are conspiring against “maker-owned dealerships”. You apparently didn’t see this when reading my post?

Dude, let’s cut to the chase: Are you really, actually claiming that the various State auto dealer associations, including the Michigan Auto Dealers Association, are not conspiring against Tesla Motors?

Of course in public they don’t admit that that’s their agenda; of course they pretend their goal is something else. That’s how conspiracies work.

This isn’t merely an opinion to claim that various State associations of auto Dealers are conspiring to keep Tesla from being able to compete on a level playing field; it’s a well-documented fact.



That is current law. Until October 2014 there was no such provision at all. Before that point, any automobile manufacturer had a choice: sell direct or use franchises, they could not do both at once. Changing the law so that the choice is gone was a mistake. Without any franchises of their own, Tesla cannot compete ‘unfairly’ or otherwise. The original law did not apply. The so-called ‘clarification’ changes the entire intent of the law to mandate sales through ‘independent franchised dealerships’ and that is unfair. Tesla has the right to prove thrmselves, right or wrong, without interference.

Sorry zzzzzz but the only ones who looks stubborn here are the dealerships and the established automobile manufactures. Yes no doubt, these manufacturers, in their effort to increase their market valuation would have gladly competed against their own dealerships who had in good faith put up their own capital to build up the automakers brand. I get it. Those laws were made to protect the dealerships. Fine. That does not apply in this case. To gang up an new American company, and legislately bully them out of the state ( i think some here said “power move”) and then have the CEO of GM taunt the new kid, is just plain wrong. Thats what it looks like to me IMHO. if Michigan doesnt give in, this will just move up the court systems, further damaging automobile dealers and GMs reputation the more press it gets. Do they really want this to go to the US supreme court? Im no lawyer, but the way i see it…. To ask a new automobile manufacturer to sell his product through a franchise, is like asking an airline to sell their tickets only through a travel agent. The point here is that in a… Read more »

+++100000000.. I Totally Agree ..You are right On the money! Great example !

“…..is like asking an airline to sell their tickets only through a travel agent.”

No, it’s like saying old airlines must sell through agents but a new startup can sell direct.

“Those laws were made to protect the dealerships. Fine. That does not apply in this case.”

It applies because making a special exception for Tesla puts the legacy carmakers at a disadvantage. That’s why many states, who don’t like the Big 3, let Tesla exploit loopholes while Michigan insists on a level playing field.

If Tesla wants to disrupt the business model, great, let them fight the battles. But it’s silly to demonize those who invested based on current laws when they lobby for a level playing field. And this “I don’t like dealers so bankrupt them all” attitude is childish.

No, it’s like the airlines decided they wanted to sell air travel tickets only through travel agents, set up their business that way, and enough time passed that some regulations and laws were passed to regulate that. Then some new company came along that decided to sell tickets directly to customers, and now the travel agents are claiming “unfair” competition, because the new company would bypass laws which were passed specifically to protect the travel agents from the airlines! The new company doesn’t have any travel agents, so there’s nobody who needs protecting.

There isn’t any reasonable or logical defense to using the State laws in this perverted manner. It’s a B.S. argument, period.

So Toyota, Honda, Nissan and Mazda “wanted” to set up independently owned dealers in the ’60s and ’70s? And Hyundai/Kia in the ’90s?

Those companies chose to follow the law. Tesla chose to fight it. More power to them — I think it’s time to change the laws myself. But it needs to be a level playing field for everyone. None of this “because of decisions you made 100+ years ago we’re locking you into a competitive disadvantage forever” BS.

Once again, prior to October 2014 the law in Michigan was that any manufacturer entering the market had a choice: sell direct or use franchises, they could not do both at once. Hyundai, Kia, Mazda, Honda, Toyota, and all the rest made their choice decades ago. None of them were mandated to use ‘independent franchised dealerships’ at all, until they did. Now, none of them are allowed to sell direct, because they have franchises. Times change, technology advances, and upon entering the market Tesla had the opportunity to make a choice the others had passed on — to sell direct, made-to-order, and online. That was not illegal until after the law in Michigan was changed in October 2014. It is not soecial treatment in any way, shape, or form. But it us disingenuous to claim Tesla is now being offered ‘the same’ options as others were, or that Tesla wants to ‘change the rules’.

Oh, and relative to your rhetorical question? When Honda brought out the Acura brand, followed by Toyota with Lexus, and Nissan with Infiniti…? Their intention, in all three cases, was to sell direct. Their network of ‘independent franchised dealerships’ hit the roof, claiming they were being ‘cut out’ of those sales. Some threatened to stop covering their ‘regular’ brands uf they couldn’t get a seat at the table, or a slice of the pie, when it came to the new luxury brands. This surprised the Japanese companies, because with the sort of anti-Japan rhetoric being spewed by guys like Lee Iaccoca back then, they weren’t at all certain these new divisions would be successful. So they had intended to take the full financial burden upon themselves in case it was a failure. After all the threats, tooth gnashing, and sabre rattling, the dealers got their way. But they don’t have that sort of influence over Tesla at all. That is why they have resorted to crony capitalism and backroom politics instead.

General Motors came out in favor of franchise laws. GM is the one that claimed direct sales was an ‘unfair advantage’ for Tesla. That is tantamount to saying that having franchises is a disadvantage to GM, but hardly anyone ever notes that point. The language of franchise laws require that automobile manufacturers must remain franchisors in perpetuity — never selling direct. It is not Tesla’s responsibility to save GM, Ford, FCA, or others from the trap they walked into with open eyes. GM can file a suit of their own to extract themselves from under the crushing heel of ‘independent franchised dealerships’ any time they like.

As for your ‘level playing field’…? There 53 Cadillac, 61 Lincoln, and 131 Chrysler locations in Michigan. How can it possibly be ‘unfair’ to have even ONE Tesla

There is no ‘freedom’ involved when it comes to selling through ‘independent franchised dealerships’. Take some time to read through the actual franchise laws that govern new car sales in Texas and Michigan. They are primarily a list of what an automobile manufacturer is NOT allowed to do, in any circumstance, even if they seem to be reasonable actions. Not only can a manufacturer not punish bad behavior, they are not allowed to reward good results! Anything at all that is suggested by an automaker can be ignored entirely if the dealers don’t want to do it. And you can’t offer new orograms to only those that are cooperative, you have to offer them to the malcontents as well. You cannot relocate, close, or open new sites without review by a government panel that is staffed by dealers. And once you have accepted a role as a franchisor you are obligated to do so in perpetuity — never selling direct.

Show me the valid reason why Michigan won’t allow Tesla to make the decision everyone else was allowed: to choose direct sales or franchises. Just because ‘everyone else’ chose franchises doesn’t mean they would have been barred, banned, or focibly limited in their operations as Tesla has been for making the opposite choice.

Of the ~500,000 units Tesla will manufacture during 2018, perhaps 60% will be for the North American market. That might be as many as 300,000 units on these shores during that calendar year. They could all be adequately handled by Tesla themselves if not for the actions of States like Michigan, Texas, or Utah. There is no one blocking their progress in Canada or Mexico, though. Even Russia and China seem to have no problem with Tesla. Isn’t it strange that it was easier to get a Supercharger installed in Dubai than in North Dakota or Arkansas? I’m pretty sure those States have electricity by now. Don’t they?

In the past I’ve questioned that Tesla would have standing in any Federal (as opposed to State) court, because the Federal courts certainly have upheld the rights of the various States to regulate sales within their own borders.

But this obvious, cynical, and hypocritical overreach by the Michigan State legislature might just give Tesla the toe in the door it needs for a Federal case.

I mean, really, denying Tesla Motors a used car dealership license too? Could they make the protectionist crony capitalism any more obvious? Why not just hang a sign in front of the Michigan capital building saying “NO DOGS OR TESLAS ALLOWED HERE”? 🙄

If Michigan refused to license Teslas or didn’t let people buy them over the internet I think Musk would have a federal case. But how is forcing Tesla to use the same antiquated system they force all the others to use a federal matter?

Tesla chose a business model that’s illegal in Michigan. They can either change to be legal in Michigan, work to change the law or fight it in state court.


“But how is forcing Tesla to use the same antiquated system they force all the others to use a federal matter?”

I doubt that a strict Originalist judge, regarding the Constitution, would find that Tesla has any standing in a Federal court. But courts rule according to established precedent, not just according to the letter of the law… which includes the text of the Constitution.

I’m not a lawyer, and even if I was, I think I would hesitate to offer an opinion here. I think someone would have to be a very specific type of lawyer, say one that specialized in both Constitutional law as well as commercial law, before one could render an informed opinion. Even then, the Courts may not agree.

Now, all that aside, I note that Tesla has a habit of filing suits which do not appear to have a reasonable chance of winning… and don’t. It’s possible Tesla is doing this just for the publicity value, and not because they think they have a reasonable chance of winning the suit.

I just hate car dealers. How it ever became such a crooked enterprise is beyond me, but as much as I like the Bolt, I just don’t see myself ever going to a dealership again. So miserable. We spent 3 1/2 awful hours at a Chevy dealership getting our Volt, kept getting upcharged for things like “lifetime tint”, and they tried to charge me 5 1/2% interest even though my FICO is well north of 800. I will never darken the door of a car dealer again. I’d rather buy used or get a Tesla. Or stick my finger in a light socket.

If we really want to torture prisoners in this country, just send them car shopping every day.

Well said! (-:

True, and yet GM touts its service as a big selling point, while in actuality it only adds cost and inconvenience to the customer.

What the hell does it matter if the law existed before Tesla. Its a law against competition, and unconstitutional. It needed striking down a long time ago, everywhere.

Now the politicians that have been getting paid off for years will have to earn their money.

Too bad they can’t direct their efforts into something more beneficial, like building new water infrastructure so people, in certain cities, Flint, don’t have poison water. Oh wait it was the politicians that caused that in the first place in order to save money. Nevermind.

They don’t treat Tesla unfairly . . . THEY TREAT ALL AUTOMAKERS UNFAIRLY.

By forcing the stealership model on autos, they are treating auto-makers different than Apple.

Did someone force the dealership/stealership sales scheme onto legacy auto dealers? No, I think they originally set it up that way by choice.

What I don’t understand is why the auto makers allowed the car buying experience to become so unpleasant and nerve-wracking. You’d think they would want to encourage more sales by requiring that the dealerships make car buying a pleasant experience. You’d think they would bring the hammer down on dealerships making car buying that unpleasant, taking away their franchise and giving it to someone else.

Or at least that is what *I* think; apparently big auto makers think differently.

It isn’t always unpleasant. I purchased last year at a Nissan dealership and it took about an hour to get everything done. Previous to that my Volt took about 30 minutes total, but that was an order at MSRP back in 2011.

Actually, YES! They did. There were dealerships and the automakers abused them thus causing these laws to come into effect. But things are different now with independent repair shops, the internet, etc.

The laws are out of date. Get rid of them.

Or pays Tesla to take in a used GM car.

I wonder if California can sue Michigan under commerce disloyalty between states or ban any Michigan products sale in California as retaliation.

Why would California act as a suitor?

Michigan isn’t single out Tesla as many Tesla has said. Sure, it is just happens that Tesla fits the “bill” so to speak. But anyone who wants to sell direct are banned.

The so called dealer laws are a shackle for all automakers. GM wanted to close dealers in PA, but couldn’t because of dealer laws.

If everyone has to play to that rules, then all new comers should play to the same rules. If we don’t like the rules, then we should ban dealers outright or allow ALL automakers to direct direct if they choose.

I don’t support making an exception for any single automaker, Tesla or NOT.

Let us get rid of dealer protection for all!!!

It should be like computers, if you want to buy it from Costco? Sure. Or you can order it from HP direct… But laws shouldn’t ban you from selling direct. However, it shouldn’t ban your competition form selling direct either…

I guess All they have to do is sell Electric, i mean 5mpg Hummers to the Government and Bet those van Be bought directly Without the need of a dealer.
Why the f.is legal to drive a truck as a passenger vehicle????
I noticed a few around here (Netherlands) and all I could think of is throwing a grenade in their trunks.
1. Their Loud as and helicopter
2. Most are so high of the ground that any regular car wil be decapitated in a crash.
3. They are not using it for hauling stuff , other than groceries or a TV… Which fits fine in a sedan or station wagon.

Why the need for ridiculous trucks as passenger vehicles? This is a global government error.

The error is when government decides what car you should drive. That’s the only time you get the Trabants of the world.

Pickup trucks are what people want to drive. They are versatile, safe, comfortable vehicles. The market has picked its winner. People want to spend a lot of money on them, and they make a lot of jobs where I live.

Most are so high of the ground that any regular car wil be decapitated in a crash.

I do find it puzzling that, as heavily as first-world countries regulate cars and specifically the safety of cars, that there is no requirement for standardized bumper heights. The tendency of SUVs and large pickups for over-riding the bumper of smaller cars, and thus causing more serious injuries and deaths, is appalling, and I’m amazed that governments haven’t taken steps to end that.

The reasons behind passing local legislation should always be for the benefit of local constituents, not groups or businesses. I can’t see how allowing Tesla to sell in Michigan can harm the majority of its constituents. In fact, State Sales tax revenue would increase, State income tax revenue would increase from the Tesla employees working at Stores, Galleries and Service Centers. The State of Michigan must be doing very well financially employment wise to pass legislation prohibiting these jobs and revenue streams.


I guess I was wrong.

Even with their poor financial standing their politicians pass legislation that thwarts local jobs and tax revenue streams.


If Tesla doesn’t like it, then tell Trump to get on and “reduce regulations” by intervene thru FTC by unifying dealer laws across the state. Trump favors “freedom in capitalism”, right? Then allow ALL Auto makers to sell direct if they choose to.

If Tesla wants to sell in MI and other states with strong dealer franchise laws, all Tesla has to do is work with some existing dealer group(s) in MI. Tesla refuses to franchise dealerships. It’s not “unfair’–all car makers have to work the same way.

It is unfair, because it wasn’t mandated prior to October 2014 that ‘all car makers have to work the same way’ by using ‘independent franchised dealerships’. If the process had been ‘fair’ then no one would have had to stoop to the level of using procedural technicality to make a change to the law that was not debated, discussed, or covered in open session. Most of those voting were unaware of the midnight revisions and thought they were passing the bill as it had been presented in committee. One guy made the change that effectively banned Tesla’s preferred business method.