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.
Tesla had a petition protesting a recall to fix a potential issue with 2017-2023 Model Y and Model 3 vehicles’ headlights was denied, as the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) disagreed with the company’s opinion of things.
The recall covers approximately 19,917 Model Y and Model 3 vehicles built from 2017 to 2023. Tesla initially submitted a noncompliance report for the headlights on these vehicles on March 15, 2024. Tesla then petitioned for an exemption from the fix, which violated FMVSS No. 108 (40 CFR 571.108), arguing that the “noncompliance is inconsequential as it relates to motor vehicle safety.
🚨 Tesla was denied a petition by the NHTSA to avoid a recall of 19,900 2017-2023 Model 3 and Model Y vehicles.
The NHTSA found that the vehicles’ headlights may exceed maximum lighting levels. Tesla argued it was inconsequential and did not require a recall. pic.twitter.com/m8Jmm1teLL
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) July 16, 2026
The NHTSA disagreed, stating that Tesla’s conclusion that the headlights do not increase any risk was not an opinion it shared. The agency said it disagreed with Tesla’s assumption that glare is not increased to surrounding traffic. This issue could be highlighted even more in certain weather conditions.
Tesla will be required to remedy the issue, the NHTSA ruled:
“In consideration of the foregoing, NHTSA has decided that Tesla has not met its burden of persuasion that the subject FMVSS No. 108 noncompliance is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety. Accordingly, Tesla’s petition is hereby denied, and Tesla is consequently obligated to provide notification of and free remedy for that noncompliance under 49 U.S.C. 30118 and 30120.”
The issue here appears to be the angle of the headlights and the brightness they emit during operation. The NHTSA report states that:
“Tesla’s headlamp supplier, Marelli Automotive Lighting, tested 25 right-hand and 25 left-hand lamps, and for this sample, found the maximum photometric intensity measured in the 10°U to 90°U and 90°L to 90°R zone was between 136.2 cd and 230.1 cd for the right-hand lamps and between 117.5 cd and 160.3 cd for the left-hand lamps. According to Tesla, these tests revealed that the photometric intensity of the right-hand and left-hand headlamp lower beam on the subject vehicles may measure as much as 230.1 cd in the 10°U to 90°U and 90°L to 90°R zone, exceeding the maximum photometric intensity by 105.1 cd. Additionally, Tesla states that a left-hand lamp tested by a Transport Canada recognized laboratory measured a maximum of 171.27 cd in the 10°U to 90°U and 90°L to 90°R zone. Despite these measurements exceeding the allowed photometric maximum of 125 cd, Tesla believes that the subject noncompliance is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety.”
Tesla also argued at some points that the headlights had not been deemed responsible for any complaints, accidents, or injuries related to the noncompliance.
Lifestyle
NTSB findings on fatal Tesla crash tell a very different story
The NTSB confirmed the driver, not Tesla’s FSD, caused the fatal Texas house crash.
The National Transportation Safety Board released preliminary findings Wednesday confirming that a Tesla driver, not the vehicle’s software, caused a fatal crash in Katy, Texas in June. The driver, 44-year-old Michael Butler, had engaged Full Self-Driving Supervised mode on Rose Hollow Lane, a residential street with a 30 mph speed limit, before manually overriding the system by pressing the accelerator pedal all the way to 100%. Data recovered from the 2025 Tesla Model 3 showed the vehicle was traveling over 70 miles per hour when it struck a home and killed 76-year-old Martha Avila, who was inside. Weather was clear, the road was dry, and it was daylight.
Texas man charged in fatal Tesla crash where he blamed Autopilot
Butler told authorities he had passed out at the wheel. But security camera footage obtained by the NTSB told a different story, and showed the car accelerating through an intersection before leaving the road entirely. Police also found that Butler’s phone had Google searches including the terms “Tesla FSD not aggressive enough 2026” and “Tesla FSD too timid,” raising serious questions about how he was using the system before the crash. Butler has since been charged with manslaughter. The victim’s family has filed a lawsuit against both Butler and Tesla, alleging negligence.
The NTSB findings aligned directly with what Tesla VP of AI Software Ashok Elluswamy had already stated publicly on X in the weeks after the crash, writing that “the driver manually overrode self-driving by pressing the accelerator all the way to 100%.” The data confirmed his account.
Yup. In this case, the driver manually overrode self-driving by pressing the accelerator all the way to 100% of the accel pedal in this residential area. They reached a speed of 73 mph during the crash, and had the accelerator pressed even after the crash.
— Ashok Elluswamy (@aelluswamy) June 22, 2026
Lucid CEO Silvio Napoli responded to rumors of an imminent bankruptcy that was reportedly being mulled after a report stated the automaker was working with the firm AlixPartners to iron out its next steps.
The company felt a massive loss on Wall Street yesterday, as the report essentially pushed the stock down as much as 55 percent on Tuesday.
The report, published initially by Eletric-Vehicles.com, claimed Lucid was essentially in dire straits and was told by AlixPartners, a commonly used restructuring advisor, to either take shares private or file for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection.
Lucid’s head of Communications, Nick Twork, immediately challenged the report and stated the company “has sufficient liquidity to carry its operations well into next year.”
Now, the company’s CEO is chiming in as well, stating that the report is “so far from the facts that they require a direct response.”
Napoli said:
“Lucid is not considering bankruptcy or a transaction to take the company private. Those reports are false. The Board did not explore either scenario. Period.
As disclosed in our most recent quarterly filing, Lucid has sufficient liquidity to fund its operations well into next year.
We work with outside advisors to improve operational performance and execution. They are not advising Lucid on a take-private transaction or bankruptcy, and any suggestion that they have recommended either course of action to management or the Board is false.
My priority is clear: turn this company around. That is where the leadership team and I are focused.
I look forward to providing a full update during our quarterly earnings call on August 4th.”
🚨 Lucid CEO Silvio Napoli calls rumors of financial issues “so far from the facts that they require a direct response.”
Read his full remarks here: https://t.co/t3Pg1NHvzy pic.twitter.com/LvHUPhO4Qf
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) July 15, 2026
It seems pretty clear that Lucid is confident things will be okay, and, to be honest, they should not have much to worry about, especially considering the company has been backed by the Saudi Public Investment Fund (PIF) for years. It has solid financial backing, and its sales, while weak, are pretty much right on par with a company of this age.
Lucid also sent a Cease & Desist letter to the publication for their report.
Lucid shares have rebounded nicely and are up nearly 21 percent at the time of publication. As soon as the company dispelled the rumors of bankruptcy yesterday, the stock began to climb back toward more reasonable levels.
Tesla has to fix a big problem with its old headlights, NHTSA says
NTSB findings on fatal Tesla crash tell a very different story
