Tesla and other companies selling vehicles directly to consumers are under threat in Florida, where two bills may disrupt how the automakers sell their vehicles.
Tesla has become intimately familiar with the laws surrounding dealerships and auto sales throughout the United States, often putting the American upstart at odds with local government and dealerships alike. Now, Tesla is again facing threats from legislatures as two new bills could derail the company’s sales system in Florida.
Currently, there are no restrictions on direct-to-consumer sales in Florida. According to the National Conference of State Legislatures, Florida Statute 320.645, “manufacturers may engage in direct-sales of motor vehicles provided there are no franchised dealerships selling such vehicles within the state.”
However, this could change.
As initially reported by Seeking Rents, Florida House Bill 637, sponsored by Rep. Jason Shoaf, and Florida Senate Bill 712, sponsored by Sen. Bryan Avila, are set to prohibit automakers from selling vehicles direct to consumer, preventing automakers from reserving vehicles for customers, and restricting automakers from incentivizing or forcing dealers to sell certain types of vehicles, including EVs.
Neither Bill has made its way to voting, and both have received substantial amounts of editing thus far, but as it stands, the current abstracts for the bills are listed below:
HB637: “Prohibits manufacturer, distributor, or importer from certain actions in allocation or distribution to franchised motor vehicle dealers; authorizes sale or activation of accessories or features through remote electronic transmission; revises provisions prohibiting manufacturer, distributor, or importer from owning, operating, or controlling motor vehicle dealership; authorizes application for injunction; authorizes motor vehicle dealer association to seek declaration & adjudication of rights with respect to certain violations.”
SB712: “Motor Vehicle Sales; Prohibiting applicants and licensees from reserving a certain motor vehicle for a specifically named person; prohibiting applicants and licensees from requiring or incentivizing motor vehicle dealers to sell or lease particular motor vehicles to specifically named persons or at specific prices or profit margins; prohibiting applicants and licensees from engaging in certain activities of motor vehicle dealers; authorizing specified entities without independent franchised dealers in this state to own, operate, or control a motor vehicle dealership in this state, etc.”
According to the lobbyists listed in association with the Bill on the Florida State Legislature website, both bills have received sizable backing from dealers and dealership groups, including the AutoNation dealership chain, the Florida Association of Automotive Dealers, and the South Florida Association of Automotive Dealers.
Neither state representative was immediately available for comment to Teslarati on the upcoming bills.
It is essential to recognize that Tesla would not be the only automaker affected by these bills. As seen in the second section of SB712, the Bill would prohibit “applicants and licensees” from requiring or incentivizing the sales of electric vehicles, which is precisely what brands like Ford, Hyundai, and General Motors have been doing nationally.
Furthermore, the Bill would prohibit automakers from intervening in the pricing of their vehicles, allowing dealers to dramatically mark up vehicles, a problem that has plagued numerous legacy automakers.
Considering how early in the lifecycle of both these bills are, there is a good chance they look very different by the time they reach the voting stage. However, with both of these bills up for voting in the coming weeks or months, there is no doubt that Tesla may face new legal pressure in the State of Florida if it hopes to continue to sell directly to customers.
What do you think of the article? Do you have any comments, questions, or concerns? Shoot me an email at william@teslarati.com. You can also reach me on Twitter @WilliamWritin. If you have news tips, email us at tips@teslarati.com!
News
Tesla Giga Berlin makes a statement of solidarity amid IG Metall conflict
The display comes as tensions between Tesla and IG Metall continue to escalate.
Tesla Giga Berlin is sending a strong message of solidarity amid its ongoing legal dispute with German union IG Metall.
In a post on social media platform X, Giga Berlin plant manager André Thierig shared an image of the facility’s lobby covered with a large banner that reads: “Progress. Innovation. Success.” He added that the slogan reflects what the facility has stood for since Day One.
“Our lobby at Giga Berlin covered in a huge banner these days. Progress. Innovation. Success – this is what we stand for since we started production in 2022 and how we will go into our future!” Thierig wrote in his post on X.
The display comes as tensions between Tesla and IG Metall continue to escalate.
The dispute began after Tesla accused a union representative of secretly recording a works council meeting at Giga Berlin. Tesla stated that it filed a criminal complaint after the alleged incident. Police later confirmed they had seized a computer belonging to an IG Metall member as part of their investigation.
“What has happened today at Giga Berlin is truly beyond words! An external union representative from IG Metall attended a works council meeting. For unknown reasons he recorded the internal meeting and was caught in action! We obviously called police and filed a criminal complaint!” Thierig wrote on X at the time.
IG Metall denied the accusation and characterized Tesla’s move as an election tactic ahead of upcoming works council elections. The union subsequently filed a defamation complaint against Thierig. Authorities later confirmed that an investigation had been opened in connection with the matter.
Giga Berlin began production in 2022 and has since become one of Tesla’s key European manufacturing hubs, producing the Model Y for regional markets. The facility has expanded capacity over the past years despite environmental protests, labor disputes, and regulatory scrutiny.
Energy
Tesla Megapack Megafactory in Texas advances with major property sale
Stream Realty Partners announced the sale of Buildings 9 and 10 at the Empire West industrial park, which total 1,655,523 square feet.
Tesla’s planned Megapack factory in Brookshire, Texas has taken a significant step forward, as two massive industrial buildings fully leased to the company were sold to an institutional investor.
In a press release, Stream Realty Partners announced the sale of Buildings 9 and 10 at the Empire West industrial park, which total 1,655,523 square feet. The properties are 100% leased to Tesla under a long-term agreement and were acquired by BGO on behalf of an institutional investor.
The two facilities, located at 100 Empire Boulevard in Brookshire, Texas, will serve as Tesla’s new Megafactory dedicated to manufacturing Megapack battery systems.
According to local filings previously reported, Tesla plans to invest nearly $200 million into the site. The investment includes approximately $44 million in facility upgrades such as electrical, utility, and HVAC improvements, along with roughly $150 million in manufacturing equipment.
Building 9, spanning roughly 1 million square feet, will function as the primary manufacturing floor where Megapacks are assembled. Building 10, covering approximately 600,000 square feet, will be dedicated to warehousing and logistics operations, supporting storage and distribution of completed battery systems.
Waller County Commissioners have approved a 10-year tax abatement agreement with Tesla, offering up to a 60% property-tax reduction if the company meets hiring and investment targets. Tesla has committed to employing at least 375 people by the end of 2026, increasing to 1,500 by the end of 2028, as noted in an Austin County News Online report.
The Brookshire Megafactory will complement Tesla’s Lathrop Megafactory in California and expand U.S. production capacity for the utility-scale energy storage unit. Megapacks are designed to support grid stabilization and renewable-energy integration, a segment that has become one of Tesla’s fastest-growing businesses.
News
Tesla Sweden strikers see tax issues over IF Metall union error
To address the issue, IF Metall is encouraging Tesla strikers to return the refunded tax amounts to the union.
A tax correction is set to return two years of income tax payments to Tesla strikers in Sweden, after authorities determined that conflict compensation during a labor dispute should not have been taxed.
The issue is caused by a decision by IF Metall to treat strike compensation for Tesla workers as taxable income during the ongoing labor dispute with Tesla Sweden. That approach has now been reversed following guidance from the Swedish Tax Agency.
Strike compensation is typically tax-free under Sweden’s Income Tax Act, as noted in a report from Dagens Arbete (DA). However, two years ago, IF Metall’s board decided to classify payments to Tesla strikers as taxable.
“We did it to secure SGI, unemployment insurance and public pension. Those were the risks we saw when the strike had already dragged on,” Kent Bursjöö, financial manager at IF Metall, stated.
According to Bursjöö, the union wanted to ensure that members continued to register earned income with the tax agency, protecting benefits tied to income history. At the end of January, however, the Swedish Tax Agency informed the union that compensation during a labor dispute must be tax-free.
“Of course, we knew that it could be tax-free. But we clearly didn’t know that it couldn’t be taxable,” Bursjöö said.
Following discussions with auditors and tax authorities, IF Metall began correcting the payments. As a result, two years of paid income tax will now be credited back to the affected strikers’ tax accounts. The union will also recover previously paid employer contributions.
However, the correction creates secondary effects. Since the payments will now be treated as tax-free, pension contributions tied to those earnings will be withdrawn, potentially affecting state pension accrual and income-based benefits such as parental or sickness benefits.
To address this, IF Metall is encouraging members to return the refunded tax amounts to the union. In exchange, the union plans to pay 18.5% into occupational pensions on their behalf. “Otherwise, it will be a form of overcompensation when they get the tax paid back,” Bursjöö said.
That being said, the IF Metall officer acknowledged that the union’s legal ability to reclaim the funds from its improperly paid Tesla Sweden strikers is limited. “The legal possibilities are probably limited, from what we can see. But we assume that most people see the value of securing their pension,” Bursjöö said.
Tesla Giga Berlin makes a statement of solidarity amid IG Metall conflict
Tesla Megapack Megafactory in Texas advances with major property sale
