Tesla’s unique business model allows them to sell vehicles directly to consumers through both retail locations and Tesla’s online design studio. Direct-to-consumer sales of its vehicles have led to some turbulence with existing car dealerships in many states, including Utah, Louisiana, Connecticut, Texas and Michigan. New Jersey allowed Tesla to open direct sales in the state in 2015, but with conditions. New Jersey’s legislation limited the number of direct-to-consumer dealerships per manufacturer to four stores and required at least one service center in the state. Tesla CEO Elon Musk once compared local car dealers to a mafia protection racket, stating in a Tesla blog post, “The rationale given for the regulation change that requires auto companies to sell through dealers is that it ensures ‘consumer protection’…Unless they are referring to the mafia version of ‘protection’, this is obviously untrue.”
Tesla recently launched a lawsuit to overturn a sales ban put into effect in Michigan in 2014 that prevents the Elon Musk-led electric carmaker from selling directly to consumers within the state. The greatest opposition against Tesla’s plea for direct sales in Michigan comes from both auto dealers and manufacturers, who argue that Tesla disrupts the traditional franchise dealership model.
Courtesy of Teslanomics.co
Ironically, Michigan and Texas which bans Tesla’s direct sales model have public pensions that are significant investors in the Silicon Valley company. However, that isn’t the only financial interest states have in Tesla. All states in the US rely heavily on sales tax to generate revenue. States without stores are forcing owners to purchase and service their vehicles out-of-state, missing out on sales tax in the process, a major revenue loss.
Source: Bloomberg, September 2016
Bill Wolters, of the Texas Automobile Dealers Association, is claiming that the introduction of Tesla into the Texas car market would “reduce competition”, and will incur costs for Texas. However, this argument assumes that dealers are creating added value for their consumers, and if that argument holds, then dealers should be able to keep customers in the market after Tesla enters. Additionally, Tesla is competing against other manufacturers and not franchises.
Racecar driver and environmental activist Leilani Munter protest’s North Carolina’s ban on Tesla’s direct sales model (Photo: Medium/Leilani Munter)
Out of a presumed 400,000 reservations for the Tesla Model 3, it is estimated that roughly half originate from the United States, according to the distribution of early Model 3 reservation data from Model3Tracker.info. Using a loosely estimated assumption of Tesla Model 3 reservations originating from banned states via Model3.ocasual.com, we get the following numbers: 1,250 in Louisiana, 2,980 in Connecticut, 3,076 in Utah, 15,670 in Texas, and 4,230 in Michigan.
The sales tax for Michigan is 6%, Louisiana is 9%, Connecticut is 6.35%, Utah is 4.7%, and Texas is 6.25%
This equates to a loss of $8,883,000 for Michigan, $3,937,500 for Louisiana, $34,278,125 for Texas, $6,623,050 for Connecticut, and $5,060,020 for Utah. That’s a total of $59,791,695 in loss revenue, which does not factor in current sales of Model S and Model X.
| States with Tesla Ban | Sales Tax | Estimated Tesla Model 3 Reservations | Projected state revenue loss (in dollars) |
| Louisiana | 9% | 1250 | $3,937,500 |
| Texas | 6.25% | 15670 | $34,278,125 |
| Michigan | 6% | 4230 | $8,883,000 |
| Connecticut | 6.35% | 2980 | $6,623,050 |
| Utah | 4.70% | 3076 | $5,060,020 |
Navigant Research believes that sales electric vehicles, including hybrid/plug-in hybrid, are set to comprise 9 percent of total vehicle sale by 2025. Currently, EVs make up 3% of total vehicle sales, but the number in 2016 saw a 36 percent increase in sales in the US alone. In 2016, 4,500 EVs were sold in Texas, 2,470 in Michigan, 270 in Louisiana, 1,452 in Connecticut, 1,132 in Utah, and 70 in West Virginia. Texas, Connecticut, and Michigan ranked among states with some of the highest EV sales. Of electric vehicles sold total in 2016, the Tesla Model S was the leading electric vehicle with ringing in at 29,156 vehicles. The Tesla Model S also outsold its entire class of vehicles, combined. Tesla is expecting high demand for Model 3, which will start at roughly half the cost of the Model S.
Source: Topspeed.com
There are currently 223,319 estimated Model 3 reservations in the United States, far greater than the sales of comparable vehicles. The BMW 3 and 4 series which sold around 106,000 vehicles in 2016 and the Mercedes C-Class sold around 77,000 vehicles in 2016. Tesla CEO Elon Musk is expecting to produce 500,000 vehicles in 2018 and tens of thousands this year (Tesla hasn’t released Model 3 production guidance for 2017). Musk’s expectations could make the Model 3 the highest selling vehicle in its class in both 2017 and 2018. The states that ban Tesla dealerships not only miss out on sales tax revenue from Tesla vehicles but in turn create an inconvenience for residents. By instating a direct sales ban on Tesla before the launch of Tesla Model 3, states will not only lose millions of dollars in sales revenue per year but also interfere with and disrupt free market competition and consumer activities.
Feature image courtesy of Delanman via Twitter.
Investor's Corner
New drone video shows Tesla’s Optimus Factory reaching a turning point
New drone footage shows Tesla’s dedicated Optimus factory steel frame nearing completion at Giga Texas.
Tesla’s dedicated Optimus factory at Gigafactory Texas is closing in on a finished steel frame, according to drone footage posted Thursday afternoon by longtime site observer Joe Tegtmeyer. In the video, Tegtmeyer said structural steel assembly is now about five column grids away from reaching the building’s north perimeter beam, putting the primary skeleton in its final stretch roughly six months after Tesla broke ground on the North Campus site in late March.
The Giga Texas Optimus Factory latest update … construction keeps moving fast!
Steel assembly is now only about 5 column grids from the north perimeter beam. Concrete is going in on the three upper floors, rebar is still being laid for more pours, and footing / grade-beam work… pic.twitter.com/qvFPvwnYzW
— Joe Tegtmeyer 🚀 🤠🛸😎 (@JoeTegtmeyer) September 17, 2026
Tegtmeyer’s footage shows concrete already going in on three upper floors while crews continue laying rebar and pouring grade beam footings at ground level. That kind of parallel work, steel rising at one end of the site while concrete sets at the other, is a scheduling approach Tesla used at the original Giga Texas building and appears to be repeating here to save time before the plant’s targeted 2027 production start.
Teslarati has tracked the building’s progress since Tesla confirmed construction was officially underway in May, when the first steel structure went up on what was then bare, reclaimed land. The facility is part of a more than 5.2 million square foot expansion of Giga Texas’s North Campus that Tesla has said will eventually run nearly the length of the existing vehicle factory, over 4,000 feet, while sitting somewhat narrower. Musk has pegged the long term output target at 10 million Optimus units a year once the line is running at full capacity, a volume that would dwarf the one million unit pilot line Tesla is standing up separately at its Fremont, California factory.
Tesla Giga Texas to feature massive Optimus V4 production line
The Texas facility sits alongside another major buildout on the same campus. Terafab, the joint Tesla and SpaceX chip fabrication plant that will eventually supply the silicon running Optimus units in the field. Housing robot assembly and chip production on the same grounds is a deliberate supply chain decision, cutting down on the shipping and lead time that would otherwise sit between the two.
Tesla has not given an updated timeline beyond its previously stated goal of bringing high volume Optimus production online at the site in the summer of 2027. Fremont’s smaller pilot line began mass producing the current Gen 3 robot in January, with that plant expected to build tens of thousands of units this year primarily to generate the real world data Tesla needs to refine the robot’s software before Giga Texas ramps up. Six months of visible construction progress, tracked almost entirely through Tegtmeyer’s recurring drone flights, gives the clearest outside look yet at how seriously Tesla is treating that 2027 deadline.
Investor's Corner
Tesla and SpaceX take “Terafab” Trademark fight to Federal Court
Tesla and SpaceX sue a small Illinois firm after cease and desist letters over Terafab.
Tesla and SpaceX are asking a federal judge to rule that their planned Terafab chip factory does not infringe a small Illinois company’s trademark, a request that arrives only after months of quiet negotiation broke down this summer.
The dispute traces to May 18, when Tesla filed three U.S. trademark applications for “Terafab” and “Tesla Terafab,” covering semiconductor chips and related chip making services. TERA-print LLC, a nanotechnology company that has held a federal trademark for “Tera-Fab” since 2021, responded five days later with a cease and desist letter. According to the lawsuit, first reported by Reuters, TERA-print argued that Tesla and SpaceX’s use of “Terafab” would confuse consumers familiar with its own trademark, which covers a desktop photolithography printer sold to researchers for sensor and bioengineering work.
What stands out in the filing is the timing of TERA-print’s own paperwork. One day before sending that cease and desist letter, on May 22, TERA-print applied to expand its existing registration to cover semiconductor materials, silicon chips, nanoelectronic devices and AI design services, categories it had not previously claimed. Tesla and SpaceX call that filing opportunistic in their complaint, noting it arrived two months after Tesla’s public Terafab announcement and just days after Tesla’s own trademark applications went in.
Elon Musk launches TERAFAB: The $25B Tesla-SpaceXAI chip factory that will rewire the AI industry
By June 10, TERA-print was threatening to sue for federal trademark infringement, false designation of origin and unfair competition, the complaint states. Rather than wait to be sued, Tesla, SpaceX and SpaceXAI met with TERA-print six separate times between June and August trying to resolve the dispute directly. Those talks collapsed, and the companies filed for declaratory judgment this week in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas, asking a judge to find that “Terafab” does not infringe TERA-print’s mark before TERA-print can file a claim of its own.
TERA-print isn’t backing down. The company told PCMag it discussed a settlement with Tesla as recently as September 2 and feels misled by what it called Tesla’s professed interest in settling. Its CTO, Andrey Ivankin, said TERA-print holds a Defense Department contract to fabricate semiconductors and partially owns Mattiq Inc., an AI company built on TERA-print’s products, and that the company will vigorously defend its rights.
Tesla and SpaceX argue the overlap is superficial. Terafab is planned as a $16.8 billion complex spanning roughly 100 million square feet at the Grimes County site SpaceX confirmed last month, built to produce chips for Optimus robots, Tesla’s AI computing needs and SpaceX’s orbital data center ambitions, a scale and purpose the companies say no reasonable consumer would confuse with a tabletop lab printer. TERA-print’s product line has stayed focused on lithography tools for biological and sensor research since it registered its mark in 2021.
The trademark fight is the second legal dispute tied to the Terafab project in the past week, following a separate SpaceX suit aimed at keeping company records about the facility out of public view, as KBTX reported. Whether construction proceeds under the Terafab name now depends on a federal judge in Austin.
News
NHTSA just escalated its Tesla Cybercab investigation in a big way
NHTSA escalated its Cybercab audit into a sworn Special Order with a September 30 deadline.
Federal regulators have moved from asking Tesla questions about its Cybercab to demanding sworn answers. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration issued a Special Order that requires a Tesla officer to sign an affidavit attesting to the completeness of the company’s responses, with a deadline of September 30.
The order builds on Audit Query AQ26002, which NHTSA opened on September 3, the same day Tesla began commercial Cybercab service in Austin. Teslarati covered that initial inquiry when it surfaced, noting the agency wanted to understand how Tesla certified a vehicle with no permanently attached steering wheel, pedals, or mirrors as compliant with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards. A Special Order is a different tool and converts a fact finding review into a legally enforceable demand, the same mechanism NHTSA used against Tesla in 2023 during its Autopilot investigation.
Several of the 21 requests target a specific gap in Cybercab’s design. One asks whether Tesla used temporarily attached human controls at any point to help certify the vehicle, and if so, which standards depended on that equipment being present. Another quotes an existing rule directly: “The service brakes shall be activated by means of a foot control.” Cybercab has no foot pedal. NHTSA wants a detailed explanation of how the vehicle satisfies that requirement, and how it complies without the kind of exemption granted to Zoox in July under Part 555, the regulatory pathway built for steering wheel free vehicles.
The order does not claim Cybercab is unsafe or that Tesla broke a rule. It requires Tesla to explain, under oath, the reasoning behind decisions the company already made when it self-certified the vehicle. That distinction matters, but so does the exposure. Motor1’s reporting, summarized here, put potential civil penalty exposure as high as $139 million if NHTSA later finds the certification was flawed, on top of whatever criminal risk comes with a false sworn statement.
Tesla has not said publicly how it plans to respond. Cybercab is still carrying passengers in Austin through the Robotaxi app while the September 30 deadline approaches, and the company has continued expanding the vehicle’s footprint even as the regulatory question remains open. The Special Order does not pause any of that and just sets a date by which Tesla has to put its certification logic on the record, with a company officer’s name attached to it.
New drone video shows Tesla’s Optimus Factory reaching a turning point
Tesla and SpaceX take “Terafab” Trademark fight to Federal Court
