News
Indiana is back with another bill to ban Tesla’s direct sales model
If a proposed Indiana House bill is passed, manufacturers of “all-electric vehicles” would be banned from selling directly to consumers. The bill does not direct any specific language to Tesla Motors, Inc., but the innovative vehicle manufacturer is clearly the target of the legislation. Add Indiana into the mix of Tesla’s long list of court cases pending in which car dealers and automakers claim that they, as intermediaries, have sole right to sell vehicles to consumers.
Indiana House Bill 1592
Indiana automakers have traditionally used an established network of dealers who negotiate with buyers and provide automotive repair services. These automakers are part of a large umbrella of politically influential groups. They argue that Tesla’s model allows the company to evade laws, which confers an unfair advantage to Tesla and provides no accountability to its buyers.
Here is the synopsis of the Indiana House Bill 1592.
Automobile sales requirements. Provides that a manufacturer may engage in sales directly to the public only if the manufacturer meets certain requirements. Provides that a manufacturer can no longer engage in sales directly to the public after the earlier of: (1) reaching 1,000 units in cumulative annual sales; or (2) six years after the initial dealer’s license is granted.
Additionally, Sec. 20. of the bill reads:
A manufacturer licensed under this article may engage in sales directly to the general public only if the manufacturer (1) has exclusively offered for sale to the general public in Indiana all-electric vehicles on a continuous basis since July 15, 2015; (2) has never offered for sale to the general public in Indiana a line make of new motor vehicles through a franchised motor vehicle dealer.
Tesla is the only vehicle manufacturer which meets these particular criteria. Tesla sells its electric vehicles directly to consumers, while other manufacturers like General Motors, Ford, Subaru, and Toyota sell through Indiana dealerships. If passed, the bill would severely limit Tesla’s ability as a manufacturer to sell to the public:
-
Subject to the expiration schedule under IC 9-32-11-12.5, a manufacturer can no longer sell to the public after the earlier of the following: (1) A manufacturer described in this section reaches cumulative annual sales of one thousand (1,000) units to the general public from its licensed location in Indiana.
The author of the bill, Rep. Edmond Soliday, a Republican, has authored or co-authored several transportation bills, including transportation infrastructure funding, automated traffic enforcement, vehicle excise taxes, and department of transportation property matters. He defeated Midwest Environmental Systems CEO Pamela Fish in the November, 2016 elections. House Bill 1592 will be heard by the Roads and Transportation committee.
Last year another Republican, Rep. Kevin Mahan, supported a similar bill that would have forced manufacturers to sell their vehicles through a dealership. “For the average Hoosier, purchasing an automobile can be daunting and a big investment,” Mahan said. “A greater variety of vehicles are now available and can be brought directly to consumers virtually anywhere in the country. In the event of a recall or malfunction, consumers should be protected.”
Arguments against limiting manufacturer sales
Tesla Motors, Inc.’s Vice President of Corporate and Business Development Diarmuid O’Connell testified against House Bill 1592. “Tesla does not operate through some kind of loophole in Indiana law,” O’Connell said. “The current law is explicit in Tesla’s ability to sell directly and, as written today, it is not broken.” O’Connell’s remarks point to current Indiana law in which an auto manufacturer is not allowed to open a store in direct competition with an affiliated franchised dealer. Tesla has no direct competition franchise dealers in Indiana and has always sold directly to consumers. O’Connell added that Tesla’s presence in Indiana has “brought only good to the consumer welfare without harming anyone — not even the dealers.”
At stake is more than a corporate tug-of-war between automakers. Tesla’s electric vehicles are at the heart of that vision for tomorrow’s consumer domestic transportation and will continue to flourish and change the way automakers in the U.S. and abroad have conducted business as usual.
If “you’re interested in promoting competition and free market principles … you recognize direct distribution, particularly for a company like Tesla, is critically important,” said Todd Maron, the company’s chief counsel, during remarks at a 2016 Federal Trade Commission event. “We don’t simply believe that [electric vehicles] represent a nice complement to gas powered cars. We believe that it’s imperative that they are replaced entirely by electric vehicles.” An end to franchising laws would advance that goal and place low-mileage gas-powered vehicles at risk of obsolescence.
Arguments in favor of limiting manufacturer sales
A coalition of free market groups, led by Americans for Tax Reform President Grover Norquist, argues that ending or restricting automotive franchising would actually decrease consumer choice. Norquist believes that reducing competition among dealers selling the same car brands hurts consumers. Franchising laws were actually created by anti-trust efforts at the Federal Trade Commission and “they sustain market competition rather than undermine it.” Last year, the group accused federal regulators of ignoring evidence that would undermine proposed measures governing automotive sales that stand to enrich what they saw as a “politically-powerful company” at consumers’ expense.
-
Harry Tepe, owner of Tom Tepe Auto Center in Milan, Indiana, supports legislation that would further protect consumers in the auto industry. “We just want to make sure there are protections in place for the consumers,” Tepe said. “The issue at hand is that the loophole is still open that allows any manufacturer to come in and market a vehicle and sell directly to the public without having any protections in place for the consumer.” He takes the position that dealerships are responsible for being a liaison between the consumer and the manufacturer.
Lobbying on behalf of the automotive industry
Proponents and opponents of Indiana House Bill 1592 are, in many cases, influenced by a powerful automotive lobby in the U.S. Automotive industry lobbyists use a combination of strategies to gain influence. They do a lot of research, sit down with lawmakers one-on-one, deliver messages in writing, and call Congressmen and members of the administration on the phone.
“If you’re a big company, like a carmaker, and you’re lobbying lawmakers, you’re almost like a pro sports team. You want to get the big names, the most talented, most knowledgeable people,” said David Levinthal, communications director for the Center for Responsive Politics, a non-partisan research group that tracks the money spent in the U.S. political system and its effect on elections and public policy. “So, these big companies, in the major industries, hire former Congressmen and top Congressional staffers and other high-ranking government officials to be their lobbyists, because those are the folks who know who all the other major players are and they know the ways of Washington.”
Source: OpenSecrets.org
In a new note to investors on Tuesday, Morgan Stanley analyst Andrew Percoco said that Tesla has one big financial question to answer for investors regarding its Robotaxi rollout, Full Self-Driving software, and Optimus.
Percoco said in the note that, for the most part, investors are still very positive about the direction the company is headed. However, there are some things the firm would like to see, and they have to do with financials.
Tesla (TSLA) Q2 2026 earnings results: miss on EPS, beat on revenue
Tesla bulls are more than convinced that the company’s Full Self-Driving software is proof it can develop physical AI. Financially, however, there are still some questions, especially on elevated spending, which CEO Elon Musk said would occur as the company works to roll out Robotaxi faster and continue developing its Optimus robot.
The latter two are where Tesla will have to prove progress to investors, as Percoco writes that both projects “will require clearer evidence that Robotaxi is scaling and more tangible Optimus proof points to support the ROI on elevated capex.”
Percoco said the second quarter earnings call did not change his long-term thesis of where Tesla is positioned in the AI race, which is out in front. However, there are concerns that weaker gross margins and higher R&D spend will stress financials, and that has “sharpened our (and investors’) focus on measurable progress across Robotaxi and Optimus.”
Additionally, Robotaxi still needs to be proven with more operation in existing cities while maintaining safety but improving how many rides it gives in any given time, he said. For Optimus, Percoco wrote that he is “still looking for evidence beyond commentary around SOP.”
-
Morgan Stanley put Percoco in charge of covering Tesla after long-time analyst Adam Jonas transitioned to the automotive side.
Currently, Morgan Stanley has a $415 price target on Tesla and a ‘Hold’ rating on the stock. It is trading at around $330 at the time of publication, which was 2:30 P.M. on the East Coast.
SpaceX’s massive investment in AI will make it a big winner, Argus Research said after the company’s successful earnings call last week.
The firm also upgraded shares to a Buy from Hold and set a $160 price target.
SpaceX (NASDAQ: SPCX) is currently recovering from its heavy AI infrastructure investments, as it spent nearly $16 billion in Q2 alone. The company did this primarily by monetizing high-demand GPU compute capacity at a much faster pace than traditional data center economics would suggest.
Company CFO Bret Johnsen said that SpaceX would be able to pay back anything on new deployments within a year.
There are plenty of ways the company can do this:
Leasing excess compute capacity through contracts
SpaceX has already built Colossus and Colossus II, largely for its own model training. However, much of that capacity is already rented out to third parties. It already has major deals with Anthropic, Google, and Reflection AI. These partnerships are adding billions per month to SpaceX’s spreadsheet.
-
High utilization driven by industry-wide scarcity
The demand for advanced AI training and inference capacity continues to exceed what is available for use. SpaceX can fill new racks quickly after they come online, so the capital deployed converts into revenue with minimal idle time.
Additionally, management and outside observers have described the new compute capital as behaving more like a cost-of-goods-sold than traditional multi-year capex, especially because of this rapid monetization pattern.
Capacity has already scaled from ~0.4 GW a year to 1.4 GW annually by the end of Q2. There are targets of more than 2 GW by year-end.
High incremental margins on the rental business once capacity is online
GPU cloud providers often operate at strong gross margins. SpaceX can monetize capacity that was already partially built or can be added efficiently. This means that incremental EBITDA margins on the rental revenue are usually high. This accelerates cash recovery relative to the gross capital outlay.
Parallel monetization of its own AI software and applications
Beyond pure infrastructure rental, SpaceX also generates revenue from Grok through subscriptions and usage, from X through ads, data, and other related services, enterprise APIs, and the planned integration of the Cursor coding tools acquisition.
These application layers ride on the same compute infrastructure and provide additional high-margin streams that could offset build-out costs. AI-segment revenue overall rose sharply to about $2.6 billion in Q2, according to Motley Fool. This was driven primarily by the infrastructure contracts, but the software side is also partially responsible.
Efficient, large-scale deployment and vertical integration advantages
SpaceX has emphasized the rapid construction of power and cooling infrastructure and favorable cost-per-megawatt economics relative to industry benchmarks in some disclosures.
-
Combined with its ability to scale capacity aggressively and the fact that many contracts start generating revenue within months of capacity coming online, the effective payback compresses dramatically compared with more conventional multi-year data-center projects.
SpaceX’s dominant near-term recovery path will turn the AI clusters into a hyperscale-style compute rental business for other leading AI companies while still using a portion for internal models.
Tesla headlights have caused a recall of over 20,000 of the company’s two most popular vehicles, the Model 3 and Model Y, due to the low-beam bulb exceeding the maximum allowed intensity according to federal standards.
Tesla initiated the recall with the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) this morning, stating that the low-beam output “exceeds the maximum allowed intensity in the outer upper-right and outer upper-left areas of the 10U and 90U zone, as prescribed in FMVSS No. 108.”
Tesla sourced the impacted headlights from Marelli Automotive Lighting, a Mexico-based company. The recall impacts 2020-2023 Model Y vehicles and 2017-2023 Model 3 vehicles. It is estimated that every VIN in this recall is impacted by the defect.
🚨 Tesla is recalling 20,349 2020-23 Model Y vehicles and 2017-23 Model 3 vehicles due to an excessively bright headlamp low beam.
Currently, there is no remedy plan in place, as it is still being developed. pic.twitter.com/y34cIO2U0B
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) August 11, 2026
Typically, Tesla would remedy recalls of this nature through an Over-the-Air software update, which has been a major focus of criticism by the company and its supporters because the NHTSA still refers to it as a “recall,” even though it requires no action by the vehicle owner. The fix is shipped over the internet and downloaded to the car.
-
However, there appears to be a potentially different solution for this problem. Tesla has not developed a remedy for this issue, so it could potentially be on the way. The big issue appears to be the fact that these recalled lamps are out of production, and this is an old body style for both vehicles. The headlights and front-end designs are completely different.
Tesla switched to another supplier when the affected headlight design was discontinued. It plans to begin notifying owners of their remedy options by September 15.
Tesla filed a petition protesting the recall to fix the vehicles’ headlight issue, but the NHTSA denied it. Now, Tesla will come up with a solution to fix it.
Tesla has one big financial question to answer for investors: Morgan Stanley
SpaceX AI investment gamble will make it a big winner, firm says
