As far as "GM's support of anti-competitive practices against Tesla" it doesn't seem to have had much effect yet. I think GM is right to be worried about Tesla's long-term competitive threat to GM. One aspect of that is the dealership franchise laws.
In the long run, it seems unreasonable for Tesla to be able to sell cars directly while GM and other longer-established companies do not have that option due to dealership owner political influence in state legislatures. That will have to be worked out. GM sees that they are stuck with these restrictions, at least for awhile, so they are seeking to stick Tesla with the same restrictions or at least prevent Tesla from obtaining a permanent advantage. I don't find that surprising.
No. It is not 'unreasonable' at all. The way that franchise laws governing the sale of new cars were originally crafted in States like Texas and Michigan is that they offered automobile manufacturers a choice.
They could choose to: 1) Become a Franchisor that sold to 'independent franchised dealerships' exclusively; or 2) Sell Direct to end users. But they absolutely could not do both at once, because it was feared that would lead to 'unfair competition' within the brand. And, once a company became a Franchisor they had to remain that way in perpetuity.
Tesla simply made the completely legal choice that no one else was willing to make, by deciding that the fate of their own business was best suited to their own hands. If anything, it is 'unreasonable' to expect they should make any other choice, given the pitiful performance of the 'franchised dealership system' with selling plug-in cars of any type. And the fact it had been 90 years or so since any American automotive startup had been successful in reaching and maintaining mass market sales using 'independent franchised dealerships'.
No one anywhere complained about Tesla selling direct when it took them three years to sell around 2500 cars worldwide. Everyone was saying that Tesla was foolhardy at best and a scam at worst. And those same statements were typically followed up by claims they would go belly up, file for bankruptcy, 'any day now' for years on end. Even if Tesla had approached dealers back then they may have been blown off and shown the door.
That changed when the Model S arrived to critical acclaim. It won the MOTOR TREND and AUTOMOBILE magazine Car of the Year... Was called 'the best car we have ever tested' by Consumer Reports... It received the highest rating EVER for NHTSA crash testing... And became the best selling car in class by early 2013.
This got the attention of 'independent franchised dealerships' who all of a sudden wanted to become Tesla franchises. Tesla entertained their calls, but could not come to terms, because none of them wanted to buy in bulk or adopt Tesla's sales and service policies & procedures. Worse yet, Tesla learned they didn't have to.
The franchise laws for new car sales were entirely separate from those covering other types of businesses. Elon once said he would happily set up a sort of hybrid franchise system, a new kind of franchise where the rules and provisions were set up to everyone's benefit within a contract agreed upon by both parties. In particular, he would LOVE to set up a franchise system like McDonald's -- where every aspect of daily operations at retail locations was determined by the Franchisor at the corporate level.
The problem was that franchise laws for new car sales specifically outlawed that type of control. Even if someone had signed a contract to that effect to become a Franchisee they didn't have to honor those provisions at all. The State law held precedence over the contracts themselves.
GM, Ford, Chrysler, AUDI, BMW, Mercedes-Benz, Honda, Toyota, Nissan, and all the rest are STUCK in the sticky mouse trap of 'independent franchised dealerships'. For them, there is no escape. Ever.
GM, Ford, and Chrysler all know now that their dustribution network is set up all wrong. But there is nothing they can do to fix it. They aren't allowed to close or move or enlarge or trim down or open any new sites for their own benefit.
The claim by the 'independent franchised dealerships' is that Tesla would 'sell more cars' using them. But none of them can explain why the Model S outsells so many of their cars that cost less than $40,000. None if them want to admit the truth: Direct Sales have proven to be more efficient and effective than using 'independent franchised dealerships'. Tesla only has about 100 locations in the U.S. But though Cadillac has over 900 locations, every single passenger car they offered during 2016 was outsold by the Model S.
What NADA has argued is that it is 'unfair' for Tesla to have a 'monopoly' on selling their own cars. They say it doesn't allow for intrabrand competition, and thus should not be allowed. The Federal Trade Commission has said that in the absence of Intrabrand competition, Interbrand competition is sufficient. And with the HUNDREDS of locations for GM, Ford, and Chrysler across States like Texas, Michigan, and Indiana, among others, there is PLENTY of Interbrand competition among domestic automakers, before you even begin to count foreign marques. And, no one else has ever been limited by law as to the total number of locations they can operate in auto sales within a State. But extremely low limitations, between 1 and 5, have been set for Tesla, in those States that don't set their maximum influence at ZERO locations.
That is patently unfair. You know, like someone saying that being monogamous means that you DON'T have sex with anyone -- but one person. No. Being monogamous means that you DO have sex with one person. Why would two people choose to be mutually celibate -- together? That makes no sense.
There are some States with very few Acura, AUDI, Infiniti, Lexus, or Mercedes-Benz locations. Those were choices made by those manufacturers to maximize distribution of their vehicles as they see fit. None of them were mandated by the State to have so few sites. And none of them were banned outright for selling a legal product in those States in the legal manner of their choice. And their competitors didn't seek legislation or injunctions to limit the expansion of the availability of those brands.
Similarly, no one at Winchell's or Dunkin' Donuts sought legal means to 'protect' consumers from the unchecked expansion of Starbucks or Krispy-Kreme. And Apple Stores didn't sue Microsoft for NOT offering the iMac and iPad in Microsoft Stores. And neither Walmart nor Best Buy have lodged legal protests against Microsoft for selling XBOX ONE in their own retail stores. And DELL Computer is still able to sell direct through mail order or their website even though the same products are offered through independent retailers.
So, why is it unfair for Tesla to sell the cars they design and build? What makes it so urgent to remove a choice that had been in place and offered to every automobile manufacturer for decades before Tesla was founded?
Something tells me a lot of people didn't quite get the moral of the story, 'The Little Red Hen'. It is one thing to offer a choice for decades, and another entirely to remove that choice because an unpopular decision is made. Tesla isn't lobbying to dismantle the 'franchise dealership system' at all. They argue they shouldn't have to become a part of it as a mandate. And just because their choice today is to NOT sell through franchises does not mean they don't have the option of doing so later. If certain conditions were met, I'm sure they might consider the option again.
