News
Tesla, Rivian still face complicated direct sales laws across U.S. states
Executives from both Tesla and Rivian have commented on the decades-long fight to overturn direct vehicle sales bans across many U.S. states, reigniting a long-held conversation in the electric vehicle (EV) community about dealership policy lobbying groups and online sales models.
Tesla has managed to side-step direct sales bans in many states through legal loopholes such as leasing-only models, processing purchases as out-of-state transactions, or simply opening stores in exempted tribal territories where the company’s stores will be exempt from dealership mandates. In other states, the company is still completely prohibited from selling vehicles, such as in Louisiana, where a U.S. appeals court just upheld Tesla’s right to sue the state over the direct-sales ban in August.
In Connecticut last July, Tesla managed to open a store on sovereign Mohegan tribal land, effectively side-stepping the U.S. state’s ability to prohibit direct sales. The Connecticut Automotive Retailers Association (CARA), a dealership lobbying group, immediately spoke out against the decision, though it gained support from Governor Ned Lamont.
Elsewhere, Tesla, Rivian, and many others sporting a direct sales model also face state store limits, and some executives have recently highlighted the decades-long fight to overturn these kinds of laws.
Other states have bans on service centers, storefronts, or both, while some only allow Tesla to sell vehicles online, though they must make deliveries through a service center. The latter includes Texas, where Tesla’s headquarters is located and where it operates a U.S. Gigafactory. As for Rivian, it faces a similar situation through its Seattle retail “Space,” since company representatives are prohibited from sharing specific details on prices or receiving orders.
As such, the state-to-state laws can be difficult for EV companies like Tesla and Rivian to wade through and operate under, so it shouldn’t come as much of a surprise when they point to dealership lobbying practices that keep them in place as being bad—or to their local teams who are working on overdrive.
Rivian CEO on state-to-state dealership laws
In a report published on Thursday, Rivian CEO RJ Scaringe said that dealership franchise laws were “as close as you can get to corruption,” as stated during a discussion with InsideEVs about whether Rivian’s recent Volkswagen partnership could let the startup work through VW dealerships. The report has reignited long-held discussions about states where Tesla, Rivian, and others aren’t allowed to operate—and seemingly due to powerful lobbying from dealership groups.
“Unfortunately, in the United States, it’s not an easy question,” Scaringe said as to the proposition of selling through VW’s dealers. “We have this horrific state-by-state level of rules that are as close as you can get to corruption.
“I think you essentially have, like, lots of dealers have paid for laws that make it really hard for us to interact directly with the consumer,” the Rivian CEO adds.
RELATED: Tesla granted license for direct vehicle sales in Kentucky
Tesla VP of Finance on state-to-state dealership laws
As a follow-up to the story, Tesla VP of Finance Sendil Palani shared his thoughts in a post on Saturday, praising the company’s local teams in states where direct sales are actively banned:
Tesla has been pursuing the direct-to-consumer model for two decades, and it has been an enormous challenge to pursue what we believe is the best model for customers.
I spent a portion of this past week visiting our Northeast region, and was reminded about how these laws are among our most prominent challenge for Sales and Delivery. Local teams make a heroic effort across the entire customer journey: from allowing customers to learn about our product at non-licensed locations while observing restrictions on sales activities, to managing a large flow of deliveries through a small number of licensed locations, to ensuring that we can properly perform vehicle registration paperwork for multiple states and customer circumstances at each licensed location.
Our customers have to make heroic efforts of their own, from traveling long distances to pick up their vehicle to patiently enduring any kinks in the process.
Sadly, this is common throughout much of the country, resulting in higher costs and a worse customer experience for the affected regions.
U.S. states with bans on direct sales models like at Tesla, Rivian
- Alabama (includes service centers)
- Arkansas
- Connecticut (leasing is allowed; tribal land loophole)
- Iowa
- Kansas (includes storefronts)
- Kentucky
- Louisiana (Tesla allowed through special license, “service center” model)
- Nebraska
- New Mexico (includes service centers; tribal land loophole)
- Oklahoma
- South Carolina (includes service centers)
- Texas (Tesla sells through online loophole, “service center” model)
- West Virginia (includes storefronts)
- Wisconsin
U.S. states with store limits on direct sales models like at Tesla, Rivian
- Illinois (limited to 13)
- Maryland (limited to 4)
- Mississippi (limited to 1)
- New Jersey (limited to 4)
- New York (limited to 5)
- North Carolina (limited to 6)
- Ohio (limited to 3)
- Pennsylvania (limited to 5)
- Virginia (limited to 5)
What are your thoughts? Did I miss anything, or do you have a story or opinion to share regarding direct auto sales? Let me know at zach@teslarati.com, find me on X at @zacharyvisconti, or send us tips at tips@teslarati.com.
DOJ echoes Tesla argument in Louisiana direct sales appeal
Tesla shared a striking video showcasing the decommissioning of the original Model S and Model X assembly line at its Fremont Factory in Northern California. Completed in just 46 days, the teardown involved heavy machinery dismantling concrete pits, removing robotic arms and conveyors, and clearing the space for new production.
The post, captioned “End of an era,” captured both the end of a historic chapter and Tesla’s aggressive pivot toward its next major initiative, Optimus.
End of an era: Decommissioning the original Model S & X assembly line in just 46 days pic.twitter.com/kGEdfhl62h
— Tesla Manufacturing (@gigafactories) July 10, 2026
The decision to retire the Model S and Model X originated during Tesla’s Q4 2025 Earnings Call in late January 2026. CEO Elon Musk announced that production of the company’s flagship sedan and SUV would wind down by the end of Q2 2026, describing it as bringing the programs to an “honorable discharge.”
Custom orders ceased around early April 2026, with the final vehicles rolling off the line in early May. A special signature delivery ceremony on May 20 marked the emotional close for these vehicles, which had defined Tesla’s early success and luxury EV segment since the Model S launch in 2012.
The primary reason for tearing down the lines was to repurpose the valuable factory floor space for high-volume production of Tesla’s Optimus humanoid robot. Musk had indicated on Earnings Calls that the Fremont S/X line would be replaced by a dedicated Optimus manufacturing line targeting a capacity of one million units per year.
This move aligns with Tesla’s broader strategic shift from traditional vehicle manufacturing toward robotics and artificial intelligence, leveraging the company’s expertise in autonomy, AI training, and high-volume production.
Optimus, Tesla’s general-purpose humanoid robot, is designed to perform repetitive or dangerous tasks in factories, warehouses, and eventually homes. Powered by Tesla’s AI and Neural Networks, it aims to be a versatile, affordable platform. Production of Optimus Gen 3 is already underway in limited form at Fremont, with full-scale output on the converted line expected to begin in late July or August.
Tesla is targeting rapid scaling, with internal ambitions pointing toward tens or even hundreds of thousands of units annually by the end of 2026.
Longer-term, Tesla is constructing a much larger second-generation Optimus facility at Giga Texas, with potential capacity reaching millions of units per year. The company views Optimus as a transformative product that could eventually surpass its automotive business in scale and value, enabling widespread deployment of useful robots across industries. CEO Elon Musk has even predicted it would be the most popular product of all-time.
As one era closes at Fremont, another is rapidly taking shape.
Elon Musk posted a candid admission on his social media platform X on June 9, declaring that he had been “clearly wrong” about Anthropic. The statement marked a notable reversal from his earlier skepticism toward the AI company.
In September, Musk had written, “Winning was never in the set of possible outcomes for Anthropic,” reflecting his view at the time that the startup had lacked the foundation or even the trajectory to succeed in what is an incredibly intense race for advanced artificial intelligence.
Musk’s latest post came amid discussion of Anthropic’s reliance on external compute resources. He praised the company’s progress, stating that Anthropic is “obviously currently the leader in AI” and that “no company has released a model as good as Mythos/Fable,” with expectations of a strong follow-up in Mythos 2.
The tone shifted dramatically from dismissal to acknowledgement of superior performance.
I was clearly wrong about Anthropic. They are obviously currently the leader in AI. No company has released a model as good as Mythos/Fable and they will undoubtedly have Mythos 2 ready soon.
And I would never cut them off in a way that hurt them badly, even as a competitor.…
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) July 9, 2026
The context of Musk’s comments added significance. Anthropic has been operating under a recent compute deal with SpaceXAI, Musk’s AI infrastructure-focused venture. The pair entered a short-term GPU lease agreement initiated in May, providing Anthropic access to critical computing power for training and deploying its frontier models.
SpaceXAI signs agreement with Anthropic for massive AI supercomputer access
Some observers had speculated that Musk could leverage this dependency to disadvantage a rival. Musk directly addressed the possibility, writing, “I would never cut them off in a way that hurt them badly, even as a competitor. That’s not my style.”
To support his commitment to ethical competition, Musk referenced concrete examples from his other companies. Tesla famously open-sourced its entire portfolio of electric vehicle patents in 2014. The move was designed to accelerate the global adoption of sustainable transportation technology rather than protect proprietary advantages.
Tesla also made its Supercharger network available to competing electric vehicle manufacturers, transforming what could have remained an exclusive charging ecosystem into a shared infrastructure that benefits the broader industry and reduces barriers for EV adoption.
Musk further pointed to SpaceX’s practices, noting that the company launches satellites for competing commercial systems “with no increase in price or use of unfair terms.” He extended the principle to his social platform, observing that “even my worst enemies attack me on this platform,” underscoring preference for open discourse over retaliation.
These examples have illustrated Musk’s long-standing philosophy that long-term technological progress is best served by open competition and infrastructure sharing rather than leveraging market power to stifle rivals. In the fast-evolving AI sector, where compute resources and model capabilities determine leadership, Musk’s stance suggests a willingness to compete on innovation and performance alone.
Musk’s admission arrives as SpaceXAI itself advances its own frontier models while maintaining business relationships across the ecosystem. By publicly correcting his earlier assessment and reaffirming principles of fair play, Musk highlights a model of competition that prioritizes advancement of the field over short-term tactical advantages.
A Tesla analyst believes the company’s Full Self-Driving suite is close to an “inflection point,” where people will finally realize that it is more than what it appears, similar to how many view the iPhone.
Pierre Ferragu, an analyst who has covered Tesla for many years at New Street Research, says the Full Self-Driving suite is one piece of evidence supporting the view that a Tesla is more than a car. He compared it to the iPhone and noted that the high price tag seemed like a lot for a phone early on. Then people realized the iPhone was more than just something you make calls with. It made their lives simpler.
🚨 Analyst @p_ferragu says Tesla Full Self-Driving is at an “inflection point” in a recent commentary:
“A Tesla is not a car, the same way an iPhone was not a phone. As a tool that gets you to work peacefully every morning, it is not expensive. Give us 2 more quarters to see… pic.twitter.com/tm6xFrjVPV
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) July 10, 2026
Suddenly, that price tag was justified.
Tesla offers several models under the average transaction price for a new vehicle, which was above $49,000, according to Kelley Blue Book. However, that does not take into account that many people can still not afford a $35,000 vehicle. Ferragu offers his thoughts:
“Remember when the addressable market of the iPhone was 10 million units? Then people realized how good it was, and now, nearly 250m are sold every year.
A similar evolution for Tesla is still on the table. A Tesla is not a car, the same way an iPhone was not a phone.
A model 3 at $35k + $100 per month is too expensive for most, but only as a car, the same way a $600 iPhone was too expensive for most, until most realized it was much more than a phone.
As a tool that gets you to work peacefully every morning, it is not expensive.”
This point is valid, especially considering the iPhone’s impact on the cell phone market. There are still a handful of players, but most people you know have an iPhone. The iPhone ties into Apple’s other ecosystem of products.
This is how Tesla plans to infiltrate the automotive market, and once the company offers a fully autonomous suite, or something that can allow for unsupervised self-driving, more and more people will flock to Tesla.
Ferragu believes Tesla needs two additional quarters of development before things will truly change. He didn’t elaborate on what will happen in two quarters, but he said it will give us all time to “see where this is heading.”
It is really quite interesting to see people’s reactions when they find out what a Tesla is capable of. Full Self-Driving is a great tool for taking stress out of travel; I use it daily, and it has made it really difficult to consider taking any other car on a drive of practically any length.
To me, it is really hard to believe that people will not at least seriously consider a Tesla as their next car if they experience Full Self-Driving. This is a major point for those who argue that Tesla should advertise in some way.
Tesla shows rapid teardown of Model S and X lines, paving the way for Optimus at Fremont
Elon Musk admits he was ‘clearly wrong’ about Anthropic
