• Sign in to follow this  
    Followers 0

    Massachusetts Dealer Association Denied Injunction Against Tesla


    William Maley

    Staff Writer - CheersandGears.com

    November 21, 2012

    Last week, the Massachusetts Superior Court denied a request from the Massachusetts State Automobile Dealers Association for an injunction against Tesla to stop them from running a store in Boston.

    The lawsuit filled on October 16th argued that Tesla violates Massachusetts' licensing, consumer protection and franchise laws since the company runs their own stores. If granted the injunction, Tesla could only use their storefronts as a place showing a locked vehicle with no staff.

    “Tesla looks forward to continuing to focus on advancing the knowledge of EVs in a convenient, accessible environment. We remain hopeful for a positive outcome of this case,” said Tesla spokeswoman, Shanna Hendriks.

    Robert O’Koniewski, executive vice president of the Massachusetts State Automobile Dealers Association tells Automotive News they are far from giving up.

    "Dropping the lawsuit is not an option at this point. We feel very strongly that Tesla is operating a factory store outside parameters of our franchise law and our license law, and they are operating that store illegally," O’Koniewski said.

    O’Koniewski goes onto say that the group is currently considering an appeal and other judicial remedies.

    Source: Automotive News (Subscription Required)

    William Maley is a staff writer for Cheers & Gears. He can be reached at william.maley@cheersandgears.com or you can follow him on twitter at @realmudmonster.

    Related Stories:

    Tesla's Factory Stores Draws Ire From Dealers

    Tesla Gets Sued By Dealer Associations In Two States

    0


      Report Article
    Sign in to follow this  
    Followers 0


    User Feedback


    Association WAKE UP!!! You are like the FREAKIN UNIONS!! You had your day and there are better ways to buy than have your enforced franchise crap.

    Join the 21st Century! :fryingpan:

    0

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    This is a problem only in Massachusetts and a few states with laws designed specifically to protect dealer franchises. Basically, the law (93B in Massachusetts) is an anti-competitive ordinance which prohibits automobile manufacturers from also owning a dealership. Or at least that is the Dealer's Association reading of the law. The law does not actually say that. It says that an automobile manufacturer cannot own a dealership and get into direct competition with its own franchise dealerships.

    The law came into being to protect dealers who had invested in their dealer franchises from being out competed by manufacturer owned dealerships -- which presumably will have an unfair pricing and/or inventory advantageous owing to their factory ownership. For instance, if Ford has 23 dealer franchises in Massachusetts and each one had invested considerable time and money in their premises and operations, Ford buying up a few of those dealerships or opening a dealership in direct competition with its franchise dealers may potentially make those business nonviable and unfairly threaten the investment the dealers made into their businesses. The law prohibits that.

    However, Tesla does not have any dealers in Massachusetts, does not intend to franchise any dealerships and there does not currently exist any "investment" by anyone outside of Tesla to the marketing, inventory, sales or support of Tesla products. Hence, the protection of commitment and investment argument is ludicrous. And in Tesla's view, it is not buying any up any dealer franchises, it is not competing with any of its own dealer franchises (they don't exist) and it is not planning to operate factory stores in parallel with franchise dealers. Hence, the franchise law does not apply simply on the ground that the franchise system does not exist.

    Basically, if the dealers win. A precedent will be set that says that automobile manufacturers cannot sell direct to customers and that only a middle man system, with non-manufacturer owned dealerships acting as the go between, will be the ONLY legal business model for the sales of automobiles.

    1

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    This is similar to Chrysler's situation in California correct? Their manufacturer owned "Flagship" store was too close to other franchised dealerships...otherwise it wouldn't (or shouldn't) have been a problem...

    0

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Cubical-aka-Moltar, on , said:

    Dealer franchising laws made sense in the 1910s...they have no place today.

    +1

    Actually, I kinda agree with the premise of the law, but not the extension of it to require manufacturers to sell cars through dealers.

    I'll rewrite the laws to clearly state that:-

    (1) An automobile manufacturer may sell directly to consumers by any means it deems fit, but only if it does not have any franchise dealerships in the state.

    (2) If it does decide to have franchise dealership(s), it may not operate a factory store or market directly to the consumer in direct competition with its franchised dealers unless all franchise agreements are nullified or terminated, and suitable termination notice and compensation are made.

    In short, you can sell direct or utilize dealers. You cannot do both. If you already have dealers, need to buy them all out. You cannot simply operate a competing factory store and uncut them out of business and skirt franchise termination compensations.

    0

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    How would you address a new brand sold by an old company. What if GM wanted to bring out a brand, we'll call it Jupiter, and sell it only in factory direct stores?

    Another grey area, except even greyer. One argument is that the dealership franchises are GM dealerships, hence GM marketing a direct sales model on a new brand is still pitting factory direct GM vehicles against dealer sold GM vehicles. The counter argument is that Jupiter brand vehicles are a differentiated product from Chevy and Cadillac Vehicles, so the dealers' claim that it out-competes them and is unfair to their investment into the franchise of selling Chevies or Cadillacs is as bogus as saying that Hyundai out competes them because their vehicles have a lower price or they offer their dealers better terms.

    With my bias, I'll say that the court rules that the manufacturer cannot do that only if it's the same brand, and that in the case of Jupiter its OK unless GM also franchises Jupiter Dealerships in parallel to factory stores. But, that's me. It'll be fought over in the courts for sure.

    Forget about factory outlets and company owned stores. Just think of it this way. Do you think it's fair to an owner of a car dealership who has put up 5 million dollars of his own money, 10 years of his time and assumed all the financial risks of operating a Chevy dealership, only to have GM decide to sell Chevies on Chevrolet.com at DEALER INVOICE price with free delivery? His business and investment would be totally compromised overnight, and GM has acted to put him out of business through (unfair) competition rather than going through the (expensive) compensatory process of terminating his franchise per their franchise agreement. I believe that illustrates the spirit of the law and what it is trying to prevent.

    0

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Well then another question... does this only apply to cars? It seems to. There are Corp owned McDonalds and Franchise owned McDonalds. There are corporate owned Marriots and Franchise owned Marriotts. There are corporate owned cell phone dealers and franchise cell phone dealers and big box cell phone dealers (which has further confusing model of stores within stores)

    0

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    on a certain level, there would be some benefits to factory direct sales. One that i can think of, it may allow manuf's to develop a more beneficial custom order and special order process. one reason so many makes and models have color and trim problems is the dealer's misinterpretation of what customers really want.

    but having worked at a dealer, you do see the effects that those dealers who do make the investment in the land and facilities pay off. And the dealers that do well do their best to be competitive on price and leading on service and experience.

    A lot of the features of factory direct sales could be realized if the dealerships would come into the new era and be open to new ways of providing the cars. But they are skeptical of change like everyone else. The internet already has changed the game so much in the last 15 years, but their are still customers out there that would not be able to function in a factory direct manner. There also would be problems selling factory direct without the factory basically duplicating so many functions that already exist at dealer level.

    Manuf's need dealers, and vice versa. I would like to see a more factory direct option for those who want it, but too much of it would erode the whole experience for everyone else who still treat the process in a more traditional way.

    I would like to see 'test drive centers' where you can go drive new iron, no questions asked, no sales pitch.

    0

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Well then another question... does this only apply to cars? It seems to. There are Corp owned McDonalds and Franchise owned McDonalds. There are corporate owned Marriots and Franchise owned Marriotts. There are corporate owned cell phone dealers and franchise cell phone dealers and big box cell phone dealers (which has further confusing model of stores within stores)

    Not this particular law. 93B pertains exclusively to automobile franchises.

    0

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites


    Your content will need to be approved by a moderator

    Guest
    You are commenting as a guest. If you have an account, please sign in.
    Add a comment...

    ×   You have pasted content with formatting.   Remove formatting

    ×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

    Loading...



  • Popular Stories

  • Today's Birthdays

    1. swgforthefence
      swgforthefence
      (58 years old)
    2. trevormac98
      trevormac98
      (33 years old)
  • Similar Content

    • By dfelt
      Tesla had an email announcement about their newest software. Enhancements to the display that improves maps and autopilot, more intuitive media player and what they are touting as an industry first, Cabin Overheat Protection focused on Child and Pet safety. This is a feature that keeps the interior of the car at a safe temp when the car is off, as they stated made possible by their large battery packs.

    • By William Maley
      It was going to happen sooner or later, but Tesla is taking the state of Michigan to federal court over its ban on direct sales to consumers. According to the suit, Tesla is seeking “to vindicate its rights under the United States Constitution to sell and service its critically-acclaimed, all-electric vehicles at Tesla-owned facilities in the State of Michigan”.
      This suit comes after the Michigan's Secretary of State office denied Tesla a dealership license earlier in the month.
      “The license was denied because state law explicitly requires a dealer to have a bona fide contract with an auto manufacturer to sell its vehicles. Tesla has told the department it does not have one, and cannot comply with that requirement,” said Michigan Department of State Communications Director Gisgie Dávila Gendreau in an email to The Detroit News at the time.
      The law in question was signed back in 2014 by current Governor Rick Snyder which made it illegal for an auto manufacturer to sell vehicles directly to consumers. The law also prohibits a manufacturer from performing service on their vehicles.
      “For the last two years, Tesla has pursued legislation in Michigan that is fair to everyone and that would benefit Michigan consumers. Giving auto dealers a monopoly on car sales benefits them, but harms consumers,” said a Tesla spokeswoman to Automotive News in a statement.
      The lawsuit names Synder, attorney General Bill Schuette, and Michigan Secretary of State Ruth Johnson as defendants. Tesla has also requested for a jury trial. 
      Tesla is seeking a permanent injunction to prevent officials in the state to enforce the relevant part of the law. This would force the state to give Tesla a dealer license.
      We'll be watching closely to see if Tesla can make any headway.
      Source: Automotive News (Subscription Required), The Detroit News

      View full article
    • By William Maley
      It was going to happen sooner or later, but Tesla is taking the state of Michigan to federal court over its ban on direct sales to consumers. According to the suit, Tesla is seeking “to vindicate its rights under the United States Constitution to sell and service its critically-acclaimed, all-electric vehicles at Tesla-owned facilities in the State of Michigan”.
      This suit comes after the Michigan's Secretary of State office denied Tesla a dealership license earlier in the month.
      “The license was denied because state law explicitly requires a dealer to have a bona fide contract with an auto manufacturer to sell its vehicles. Tesla has told the department it does not have one, and cannot comply with that requirement,” said Michigan Department of State Communications Director Gisgie Dávila Gendreau in an email to The Detroit News at the time.
      The law in question was signed back in 2014 by current Governor Rick Snyder which made it illegal for an auto manufacturer to sell vehicles directly to consumers. The law also prohibits a manufacturer from performing service on their vehicles.
      “For the last two years, Tesla has pursued legislation in Michigan that is fair to everyone and that would benefit Michigan consumers. Giving auto dealers a monopoly on car sales benefits them, but harms consumers,” said a Tesla spokeswoman to Automotive News in a statement.
      The lawsuit names Synder, attorney General Bill Schuette, and Michigan Secretary of State Ruth Johnson as defendants. Tesla has also requested for a jury trial. 
      Tesla is seeking a permanent injunction to prevent officials in the state to enforce the relevant part of the law. This would force the state to give Tesla a dealer license.
      We'll be watching closely to see if Tesla can make any headway.
      Source: Automotive News (Subscription Required), The Detroit News
    • By dfelt
      Gizmodo reports Tesla is being sued by 127 people in Norway cause Insane mode is not insane enough.
      http://gizmodo.com/telsa-sued-because-insane-mode-not-insane-enough-1786893579
      Pretty interesting reading, clearly buying the P85D with insane mode is understandably not as insane as a P90D or P100D. Guess these people have more money than brains.
       
    • By William Maley
      In news that will likely not shock anyone, Michigan's Secretary of State office has official denied Tesla a dealership license to sell vehicles in the state. The ruling issued last week follows a hearing earlier this month to review Michigan's initial motion to deny Tesla's request for a license, submitted last November.
      “The license was denied because state law explicitly requires a dealer to have a bona fide contract with an auto manufacturer to sell its vehicles. Tesla has told the department it does not have one, and cannot comply with that requirement,” said Michigan Department of State Communications Director Gisgie Dávila Gendreau in an email to The Detroit News.
      This is due to a state law signed in 2014 which states,  “a vehicle manufacturer shall not … sell any new motor vehicle directly to a retail customer other than through franchised dealers.”
      Tesla has been fighting tooth and nail to sell their vehicles in Michigan for a few years now by lobbying and applying for a license.  As Automotive News notes, Michigan is the most populated state that doesn't have a Tesla gallery or store. 
      "At the urging of local car dealers and GM, Michigan law was changed two years ago to prevent Michigan consumers from buying cars from a Tesla store within the state. As part of the process of challenging the legality of that law, Tesla applied for a license in Michigan. Tesla will continue to take steps to defend the rights of Michigan consumers," Tesla said in a statement to Automotive News.
      Now people outside of Tesla have been trying to change the law. As we reported back in February, a 22-year launched a petition to repeal this law. Also, Rep. Aaron Miller, R-Sturgis introduced a bill into the state's legislature to allow companies like Tesla to do direct sales. But as The Detroit News reports, the bill has sat stagnant.
      “The discussion’s not over but for this session I think we’ve reached that point of no progress. I think the clock is going to run out on us,” said Miller.
      Now it should be stated that anyone from Michigan who wants to order a Tesla can do so from the company's website. You'll have to pickup your vehicle outside of the state however, the closest ones being in Ohio.
      Where does Tesla go next? That is anyone's guess at the moment. But as Tesla's general counsel Todd Maron said back in May, the company would either go to court or the legislation to make the change. Our hunch is Tesla will be going for the former.
      Source: Automotive News (Subscription Required), The Detroit News

      View full article
  • Recent Status Updates

  • Who's Online (See full list)