Connect with us

News

Tesla, Rivian still face complicated direct sales laws across U.S. states

Credit: Alex Guberman at E for Electric

Published

on

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.

Advertisement

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.

Advertisement

“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.

Advertisement

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
Advertisement

Zach is a renewable energy reporter who has been covering electric vehicles since 2020. He grew up in Fremont, California, and he currently lives in Colorado. His work has appeared in the Chicago Tribune, KRON4 San Francisco, FOX31 Denver, InsideEVs, CleanTechnica, and many other publications. When he isn't covering Tesla or other EV companies, you can find him writing and performing music, drinking a good cup of coffee, or hanging out with his cats, Banks and Freddie. Reach out at zach@teslarati.com, find him on X at @zacharyvisconti, or send us tips at tips@teslarati.com.

Advertisement
Comments

Elon Musk

SpaceX Board has set a Mars bonus for Elon Musk

SpaceX has given Elon Musk the goal to put one million people on Mars.

Published

on

By

Rendering of a colonized Mars by way of SpaceX

SpaceX’s board approved a compensation plan for Elon Musk that ties his pay directly to colonizing Mars and building data centers in outer space. The details surfaced this week after Reuters reviewed SpaceX’s confidential registration statement filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission, making it one of the first concrete looks inside the company’s financials ahead of a public offering.

The pay package will reportedly award Musk 200 million super-voting restricted shares if the company hits a market valuation milestone, with the most ambitious targets going further. To unlock the full award, SpaceX would need to reach a $7.5 trillion valuation and help establish a permanent human settlement on Mars with at least one million residents. Additional incentives are tied to developing space-based computing infrastructure capable of delivering at least 100 terawatts of processing power.

SpaceX wins its first MARS contract but it comes with a catch

Long before SpaceX filed anything with the SEC, Elon Musk had already spent years framing Mars colonization as an insurance policy against human extinction. The philosophy traces back to at least 2001, when Musk first began researching Mars missions independently, before SpaceX even existed. By 2002 he had founded the company with Mars as the stated long-term goal.

In a 2017 presentation at the International Astronautical Congress, Musk outlined the specific vision that still underpins SpaceX’s architecture today. He described a self-sustaining city on Mars requiring roughly one million people to become viable, the same number now written into his compensation package.

SpaceX’s Starship, still in active development, was designed from the ground up to support the eventual colonization of Mars. Musk has stated publicly that getting the cost per ton to Mars below $100,000 is necessary to make mass migration economically feasible. Everything from Starship’s payload capacity to its full reusability targets flows from that single constraint. One can say that Musk’s latest compensation package has put a formal valuation on Mars for the first time.

SpaceX is targeting an IPO around June 28, Musk’s birthday, at a valuation of approximately $1.75 trillion. Between the Mars rover contract, the Golden Dome software group, Space Force satellite launches, and now a pay structure built around interplanetary colonization, SpaceX has become the single most consequential contractor in American space and defense. The IPO will put a public price tag on all of it for the first time.

Continue Reading

News

Tesla’s biggest rivals fights charging wait times with a modern approach

Published

on

Tesla V4 Supercharger installation ramping in Europe

Earlier this week, we wrote a story on how Tesla is launching a new Supercharging Queue system to mitigate problems between drivers when there is a wait to charge.

Rather than potentially having people end up in a physical conflict, Tesla’s approach is to determine who is next to charge based on geographic data.

Tesla launches solution to end Supercharger fights once and for all

But some companies, notably Tesla’s biggest rival in China, BYD, are taking a different approach, focusing on charging speeds rather than how they will manage delays.

BYD’s approach, especially with its tests of ultra-fast “Flash Charging” technology, is to eliminate the length of a charging session. At the heart of this strategy is BYD’s second-generation Blade Battery paired with 1,500-kW Flash Chargers.

Unveiled earlier this year, the system charges compatible vehicles from 10 percent to 70 percent state of charge in just five minutes and from 10 percent to 97 percent in nine minutes.

Real-world demonstrations on models like the Yangwang U7 and Denza Z9 GT have shown the tech delivering roughly 250 miles (400 kilometers) of range in just five minutes. This would essentially match or beat the time it takes to fill a gas tank.

Sometimes, gas pumps get congested, and there are lines. You rarely see conflicts at pumps because filling up a tank rarely takes more than five minutes.

Tesla’s fastest Supercharger build currently is the v4, which can deliver up to 325 kW for Cybertruck and 250 kW for other models, but there are “true” sites that are capable of up to 500 kW. This enables speeds of up to 1,000 miles per hour, or 1,400 miles for 350 kW-capable vehicles.

The breakthrough stems from BYD’s vertically integrated ecosystem: a new 1,000-volt architecture, 10C charging rates, and proprietary silicon-carbide chips that minimize internal resistance while protecting battery health.

The company plans to install 20,000 Flash Charging stations across China by the end of 2026, with thousands already operational and global expansion eyed for Europe and beyond later this year.

Early rollout targets popular models, including upgrades to high-volume sellers like the Seal and Sealion series, bringing five-minute charging to mainstream prices around 100,000 yuan (about $14,000).

This approach contrasts sharply with Tesla’s software solution. Tesla’s Virtual Queue uses geofencing and the app to assign turns at crowded sites, addressing driver disputes and idle time. It’s a clever fix for today’s network realities.

Yet, BYD’s philosophy is simpler: make charging so fast that waits barely exist. A five-minute stop becomes as convenient as a gas-station visit, reducing station dwell time, easing grid strain, and lowering range anxiety for long trips.

For consumers, the difference is potentially tangible. They’ll spend more time driving and less time parked. It is just another way Tesla and BYD are pushing one another to improve the overall experience of EV ownership.

Continue Reading

News

Tesla wins big as NHTSA drops three-year, 120k unit probe against Model Y

In all, 120,089 Model Ys were impacted, but in two cases, drivers reported the complete detachment of the steering wheel from the steering column while the vehicle was in motion. NHTSA’s initial review revealed that the vehicles had been delivered without the critical retaining bolt that secures the steering wheel to the splined steering column.

Published

on

Credit: Tesla Asia | X

A probe into over 120,000 2023 Tesla Model Y units has been closed by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA). The probe ends without the agency requiring any action from Tesla.

The probe, designated PE23-003, opened in March 2023 and stemmed from just two consumer complaints involving low-mileage Model Y SUVs.

In all, 120,089 Model Ys were impacted, but in two cases, drivers reported the complete detachment of the steering wheel from the steering column while the vehicle was in motion. NHTSA’s initial review revealed that the vehicles had been delivered without the critical retaining bolt that secures the steering wheel to the splined steering column.

Factory records showed each car had undergone an “end-of-line” repair at Tesla’s facility, during which the steering wheel was removed and reinstalled. The bolt was apparently omitted after the repair, leaving only a friction fit between the wheel and column to hold it in place temporarily.

According to NHTSA documents, this friction fit maintained the connection during initial low-mileage driving until forces during normal operation caused the wheel to detach. Both vehicles that were impacted were repaired under warranty with no injuries reported, and no additional incidents surfaced during the agency’s three-year review.

Tesla Model Y steering wheel detachments prompt NHTSA probe

After analyzing manufacturing processes, complaint data, and field reports, NHTSA concluded the issue was isolated to those two post-repair vehicles rather than indicative of a systemic defect in Tesla’s production or quality control.

The closure means the agency has determined no recall or further enforcement is warranted for this specific missing-bolt condition.

This outcome marks the second NHTSA investigation into Tesla closed without action this month, as a recent probe into the company’s “Actually Smart Summon” feature was also resolved in April.

Tesla Full Self-Driving feature probe closed by NHTSA

The two resolutions provide some relief for Tesla amid the continuous and somewhat unfair regulatory scrutiny of its vehicles, including open inquiries into driver assistance systems.

Importantly, the closed probe does not involve or affect Tesla’s separate May 2023 voluntary recall of certain 2022-2023 Model Y vehicles. That recall addressed a different issue—steering-wheel fasteners that were installed but not torqued to specification—prompted by a service technician’s observation of a loose wheel during unrelated repairs.

Tesla identified a small number of related warranty claims and proactively addressed the matter without NHTSA mandate.

The Model Y remains one of the world’s best-selling vehicles, and Tesla continues to refine its lineup, including the recent “Juniper” refresh. While federal oversight of the electric vehicle pioneer remains intense, this decision underscores that isolated manufacturing anomalies do not always translate into broader safety defects requiring recalls.

Continue Reading