• 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


    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?

    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

    ×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor




  • Popular Stories

  • Popular Now

  • Today's Birthdays

    1. gmcbob
      gmcbob
      (42 years old)
  • Similar Content

    • By dfelt
      G. David Felt
      Staff Writer Alternative Energy - www.CheersandGears.com
       
      Tesla / Solarcity merger, Brilliant or Disaster?

      Tesla announced their intent to buy SolarCity and some screamed the sky is falling. Tesla moves forward with offering a complete home solution of Solar panels, battery bank and 220V charging for your Tesla and believes they have the future tied up in a single one stop shopping solution that beats all the other Auto OEMS.

      The merger final vote by Solarcity shareholders is scheduled for Nov 17th 2016. Yet with this deal not done yet, there are many that have divided into two camps, those that think this is brilliant such as reported by Barron's yesterday that ISS one of the largest outside analyst groups that advises shareholders on mergers gave it's blessing to what they believe is an outstanding tie up of two companies that can maximize return on investments. Barron's believes that Tesla has addressed all the concerns that allow for a successful merger of the two companies and a maximizing of complementary products.
      Barron's Story
      One CNBC story feels that this merger might even be a little late. They agree that Solarcity will provide about $1 Billion next year in revenue to the new merged company and add about $500 million in cash to the Tesla corporation over the next 3 years.
      CNBC Story
      Then you have the latest story also from CNBC where a different analyst believes this is nothing but one large mistake and that is due to what he sees as an impossible return on the investment. Yet even with that he also points out to strong supporters such as Ron Baron who ownes 1.5 million shares that see a 30 to 50 times return on the stock due to the merger. 
      CNBC Story 2
      Yet with all this,  “Playing Amish Paradise in my Tesla,” Musk shared with his 5.8 million Twitter followers on Sunday we have the man himself seeing a much simpler life for us all in the new EV world.
       
      So what is your thoughts on this whole merger and the new EV world Musk sees for us all?
       
    • By dfelt
      G. David Felt
      Staff Writer Alternative Energy - www.CheersandGears.com
       
      Tesla Ends Free Charging Jan 1st 2017

      Tesla has announced the end of their free supercharging for all new auto's starting January 1st 2017. CNBC has reported that Tesla has informed them that all auto's sold starting Jan 1st 2017 will only come with a free yearly use of 400KWh or equal to about 1000 miles of driving. After this users of their Supercharging stations will have to pay local electrical rate fee's up to a certain point. This is to allow Tesla to grow their north american network from the current 734 stations with 4600 superchargers. Their superchargers charge a 170 mile range in 30 min. Tesla also has stated that the cost to charge can and will fluctuate over time depending on the time of year and regional area due to the costs of electricity in that area. With Tesla planning to product annually 500,000 cars a year starting in 2018, many think this is necessary to grow. Others feel differently and further yet some wonder if they sell their existing Tesla S, does the life time of free charging transfer with the car to the new owner? This in itself could enhance resale of older tesla's built before January 1st 2017. 
      Tesla has stated that more defined details will be released by the end of 2016. At this time, if you want lifetime free charging, buy your Tesla S or X now and take delivery by April 17th 2017.
      CNBC story
    • By ccap41
      "Tesla has created its own glass technology group, CEO Elon Musk announced this week on a conference call, reports Eletrek. Not only will this special glass be used for solar roof tiles, but it will also have automotive applications. In fact, the first car to receive the new glass will be the Model 3, Musk confirmed.
      Last week, Tesla announced it would create actual solar roofs (as opposed to solar panels) that are highly durable and can provide power for homes. In a video posted to Twitter, Tesla showed off the strength of its new solar roof glass tiles. But the ultra-strong glass technology will apparently trickle down to the roof or windshield of the Model 3. The entry-level sedan offers a full-length glass roof spanning from the windshield to the rear window, making it the perfect vehicle for this tech. Then again, the Tesla Model S already features an open, airy panoramic roof, and the Model X has the largest glass panoramic windshield in production.
      Musk took to Twitter to explain the benefits of the special glass.
      Ads by ZINC                                                       The director of Tesla Glass is Mike Pilliod, who was a top materials engineer at Apple. He has patented innovations relating to glass, including glass touchscreens.
      Source: Eletrek, Business Insider "
      http://www.motortrend.com/news/tesla-model-3-use-glass-technology-solar-roofs/
      I just thought this was waaaay too cool not to share!
    • By dfelt
      G. David Felt
      Staff Writer Alternative Energy - www.CheersandGears.com
       
      Tesla Reports First Profit after 12 Quarterly Losses!

      Surprise, Surprise, Tesla posts a $22 million profit for it's latest quarter. How did Tesla do this?
      Wall Street Story
      WSJ reports that Tesla reports the following numbers:
      Selling pollution tax credits to other auto makers. Gross profit from the credits soared to $139 million from $39 million a year ago.
      Revenue is up to $2.3 billion from $936.8 million a year earlier.
      Tesla said it generated free cash flow, repaid $600 million in debt and finished September with $3.1 billion in cash, a decline of $162 million from the end of June.  
      Tesla also lowered its forecast for capital spending this year to $1.8 billion from $2.25 billion. About $1 billion of that spending could occur in the fourth quarter, it said.
      Shares were up 5% to $212.05 in after-hours trading on Wednesday.
      WSJ says this has been helped by Tesla's newest Model S version that starts now at $66,000 which contributed greatly to their bottom line as the Q3 was the first full quarter of Entry level Model S sales.
      Barclays auto analysts has stated that Tesla will need $2.5 billion through the end of 2017 for the Model 3 rollout and completion of the battery factory.
      WSJ Web Page Story
    • By William Maley
      Last year, Tesla gave the Los Angeles Police Department two Model S P85Ds to evaluate for possible duty as a police vehicle. It seems the LAPD were impressed that they have decided to equip one of the two models to duty as a patrol vehicle.
      NBC affiliate KNBC in Los Angeles reports that the LAPD is working with Tesla on an agreement to equip one of the Model Ss with the equipment needed for patrol duty - radios, computer, custody cage, and locking shotgun rack.
      "They will have an active role equipping this vehicle," said Vartan Yegiyan, LAPD's assistant commander of the Administrative Services Bureau - the group that oversees the vehicles of the department.
      Once equipped, the Model S will be put to the test with doing patrol work and possibly as a high-speed pursuit vehicle.
      No matter how the Model S fares in this test, it is still an expensive proposition for the department. Depending on the configuration, a Model S can upwards over $130,000 - this is before it is fitted with all the equipment needed for a police vehicle. The LAPD believes it could be about five years before they seriously consider replacing their conventional patrol vehicles with electrics.
      Source: KNBC
      Pic Credit: LAPD HQ on Twitter

      View full article
  • Recent Status Updates

  • Who's Online (See full list)