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
Elon Musk
Tesla’s Elon Musk: 10 billion miles needed for safe Unsupervised FSD
As per the CEO, roughly 10 billion miles of training data are required due to reality’s “super long tail of complexity.”
Tesla CEO Elon Musk has provided an updated estimate for the training data needed to achieve truly safe unsupervised Full Self-Driving (FSD).
As per the CEO, roughly 10 billion miles of training data are required due to reality’s “super long tail of complexity.”
10 billion miles of training data
Musk comment came as a reply to Apple and Rivian alum Paul Beisel, who posted an analysis on X about the gap between tech demonstrations and real-world products. In his post, Beisel highlighted Tesla’s data-driven lead in autonomy, and he also argued that it would not be easy for rivals to become a legitimate competitor to FSD quickly.
“The notion that someone can ‘catch up’ to this problem primarily through simulation and limited on-road exposure strikes me as deeply naive. This is not a demo problem. It is a scale, data, and iteration problem— and Tesla is already far, far down that road while others are just getting started,” Beisel wrote.
Musk responded to Beisel’s post, stating that “Roughly 10 billion miles of training data is needed to achieve safe unsupervised self-driving. Reality has a super long tail of complexity.” This is quite interesting considering that in his Master Plan Part Deux, Elon Musk estimated that worldwide regulatory approval for autonomous driving would require around 6 billion miles.
FSD’s total training miles
As 2025 came to a close, Tesla community members observed that FSD was already nearing 7 billion miles driven, with over 2.5 billion miles being from inner city roads. The 7-billion-mile mark was passed just a few days later. This suggests that Tesla is likely the company today with the most training data for its autonomous driving program.
The difficulties of achieving autonomy were referenced by Elon Musk recently, when he commented on Nvidia’s Alpamayo program. As per Musk, “they will find that it’s easy to get to 99% and then super hard to solve the long tail of the distribution.” These sentiments were echoed by Tesla VP for AI software Ashok Elluswamy, who also noted on X that “the long tail is sooo long, that most people can’t grasp it.”
News
Tesla earns top honors at MotorTrend’s SDV Innovator Awards
MotorTrend’s SDV Awards were presented during CES 2026 in Las Vegas.
Tesla emerged as one of the most recognized automakers at MotorTrend’s 2026 Software-Defined Vehicle (SDV) Innovator Awards.
As could be seen in a press release from the publication, two key Tesla employees were honored for their work on AI, autonomy, and vehicle software. MotorTrend’s SDV Awards were presented during CES 2026 in Las Vegas.
Tesla leaders and engineers recognized
The fourth annual SDV Innovator Awards celebrate pioneers and experts who are pushing the automotive industry deeper into software-driven development. Among the most notable honorees for this year was Ashok Elluswamy, Tesla’s Vice President of AI Software, who received a Pioneer Award for his role in advancing artificial intelligence and autonomy across the company’s vehicle lineup.
Tesla also secured recognition in the Expert category, with Lawson Fulton, a staff Autopilot machine learning engineer, honored for his contributions to Tesla’s driver-assistance and autonomous systems.
Tesla’s software-first strategy
While automakers like General Motors, Ford, and Rivian also received recognition, Tesla’s multiple awards stood out given the company’s outsized role in popularizing software-defined vehicles over the past decade. From frequent OTA updates to its data-driven approach to autonomy, Tesla has consistently treated vehicles as evolving software platforms rather than static products.
This has made Tesla’s vehicles very unique in their respective sectors, as they are arguably the only cars that objectively get better over time. This is especially true for vehicles that are loaded with the company’s Full Self-Driving system, which are getting progressively more intelligent and autonomous over time. The majority of Tesla’s updates to its vehicles are free as well, which is very much appreciated by customers worldwide.
Elon Musk
Judge clears path for Elon Musk’s OpenAI lawsuit to go before a jury
The decision maintains Musk’s claims that OpenAI’s shift toward a for-profit structure violated early assurances made to him as a co-founder.
A U.S. judge has ruled that Elon Musk’s lawsuit accusing OpenAI of abandoning its founding nonprofit mission can proceed to a jury trial.
The decision maintains Musk’s claims that OpenAI’s shift toward a for-profit structure violated early assurances made to him as a co-founder. These claims are directly opposed by OpenAI.
Judge says disputed facts warrant a trial
At a hearing in Oakland, U.S. District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers stated that there was “plenty of evidence” suggesting that OpenAI leaders had promised that the organization’s original nonprofit structure would be maintained. She ruled that those disputed facts should be evaluated by a jury at a trial in March rather than decided by the court at this stage, as noted in a Reuters report.
Musk helped co-found OpenAI in 2015 but left the organization in 2018. In his lawsuit, he argued that he contributed roughly $38 million, or about 60% of OpenAI’s early funding, based on assurances that the company would remain a nonprofit dedicated to the public benefit. He is seeking unspecified monetary damages tied to what he describes as “ill-gotten gains.”
OpenAI, however, has repeatedly rejected Musk’s allegations. The company has stated that Musk’s claims were baseless and part of a pattern of harassment.
Rivalries and Microsoft ties
The case unfolds against the backdrop of intensifying competition in generative artificial intelligence. Musk now runs xAI, whose Grok chatbot competes directly with OpenAI’s flagship ChatGPT. OpenAI has argued that Musk is a frustrated commercial rival who is simply attempting to slow down a market leader.
The lawsuit also names Microsoft as a defendant, citing its multibillion-dollar partnerships with OpenAI. Microsoft has urged the court to dismiss the claims against it, arguing there is no evidence it aided or abetted any alleged misconduct. Lawyers for OpenAI have also pushed for the case to be thrown out, claiming that Musk failed to show sufficient factual basis for claims such as fraud and breach of contract.
Judge Gonzalez Rogers, however, declined to end the case at this stage, noting that a jury would also need to consider whether Musk filed the lawsuit within the applicable statute of limitations. Still, the dispute between Elon Musk and OpenAI is now headed for a high-profile jury trial in the coming months.
Tesla’s Elon Musk: 10 billion miles needed for safe Unsupervised FSD
Tesla earns top honors at MotorTrend’s SDV Innovator Awards
