Michigan, at the Behest of GM, Targets Tesla With Ban on Direct Car Sales


Republican Michigan Gov. Rick Snyder reminded us all today who actually controls his state by signing House Bill 5606 into law. The law emphasizes an existing state ban that prohibits car manufacturers from selling vehicles directly to consumers, but this new bill apparently adds more rules and regulations. Though it doesn't mention electric car manufacturer Tesla by name, everybody grasps that they are the target.
General Motors declared support for the law, which they insist makes sure all car manufacturers follow the same rules. Funny, they could also accomplish the same by completely dumping the regulations, which protect car dealerships for no rational public purpose. Remember the rule: If some big business claims a law will create a "level playing field" in the marketplace, you can count on it favoring them at the expense of somebody else. Needless to say, Tesla isn't impressed:
What's good for GM's customers is not necessarily good for Tesla's customers. What's good for gasoline cars is not necessarily good for electric cars. Tesla is selling a new product with a new technology. The evidence is overwhelming that a traditional dealer-based approach does not work for electric cars. Moreover, GM distorts the purpose of the franchise laws (including in Michigan), which are in place not to cement a monopoly for franchised dealers but rather to prevent companies with existing franchises from unfairly competing against them. Tesla has never used franchised dealers, so these concerns are simply irrelevant. It's only through the last-minute amendment to HB 5606 that Michigan law would be distorted into something entirely different.
Auto blog Jalopnik has more information here. Tesla claims the lengthy bill would even ban them from having showrooms in the state.
Previous Reason coverage of protectionist efforts to block Tesla sales can be read here, and here.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Cars that don't go through dealerships on their way to customers will explode at the slightest provocation. Everyone knows that.
Well, I guess that answers my question below.
There is obviously no libertarian friendly justification for these rules. But is there any justification at all besides propping up car dealerships?
But is there any justification at all besides propping up car dealerships?
Propping up car dealerships that have relationships with GM which is a Union Company. So, Koch brothers.
Maybe over a hundred years ago when a person bought a shitty car from a company based halfway across the country it may have served some purpose in giving a consumer a local guy to go after. In today's world, no.
Propping up the UAW.
Car dealership owners are the local bourgeoisie.
Car dealerships pay a lot of local property taxes and employ local people.
It's really nothing more complicated than that.
Mr. Treehorn draws a lot of water in this town... you don't draw shit, Lebowski.
Republican Michigan Gov. Rick Snyder reminded us all today who actually controls his state
Republican Rick Snyder?
And the elected legislators who wrote the law?
And the elected legislators lobbyists who wrote the law?
FTFY
Of course lobbyists wrote-wrote the law, but it takes a certain someone with police powers to, you know, pass and enforce the law.
When 80 percent of your State's economy is dependent on the success of 3 companies, you tend to do their bidding regardless of personal convictions or party affiliation.
When 80 percent of your State's economy is dependent on the success of 3 companies
And they had a solution to that right in front of their eyes and said, "Nope, we're happy with only three!"
The most disgusting thing about this legislation is that it forces me to defend Elon Musk.
Has anyone around here driven a Tesla? My mother-in-law is thinking of getting one.
Tell your MIL that she'd be better off buying an M3.
I assume the battery has a limited lifespan, and it becomes a toxic waste dump after that.
Two companies that have made a living rent seeking.A pox on both their houses.( the law is unjust though)
Retarded ban is retarded, but as someone from mid-Michigan, I wouldn't want to be in a Tesla during our local snowstorm. Diesel BMW FTW!
The evidence is overwhelming that a traditional dealer-based approach does not work for electric cars.
"Electric" is irrelevant. A boutique automaker which will never have more than a vanishingly small segment of the market cannot justify the additional overhead of a dealer network.
Live by the government, die by the government.
Tesla robbed folks when they were showered with subsidies robbed by the government who extorted (taxed) individuals in the first place.
So they can go eff themselves, and I hope they choke on every last regulation the government force feeds them. I hope they like looking down the barrel of the govt's gun when they don't "obey and comply".
Lots of Telsa showroom locations near the borders of northern Indiana, northwestern Ohio, and northeastern Wisconsin might be an interesting result...