News
Volvo faces legal pushback in California on possible pivot to Tesla-style direct sales model
On Tuesday, the California New Car Dealers Association (CNCDA) filed a petition against Volvo USA with California’s New Motor Vehicle Board claiming the legacy car maker violates state franchise laws banning manufacturer competition with dealerships. The group claimed the “Care by Volvo” (CbV) subscription service launched in early 2018 which provides all-in-one packages of 24-month leases, premium insurance, concierge service, and most vehicle maintenance, was using Volvo dealers as de facto “agents” in an effective practice of dealing directly to consumers. The move is reminiscent of Tesla’s struggles, itself being the subject of dealer franchise-focused legal actions. However, the legal questions aside, the sum of CNCDA’s complaints additionally indicate its objection to Volvo’s possible ongoing shift to a Tesla-style overall direct-sales model.
In Volvo’s CbV subscription plan, buyers select from two currently offered models – the S60 and XC40, including customizations – via an app or a corporate-run website. Once the car selection is final, an agent from Volvo’s financial services company (the “Volvo Concierge”) contacts the buyer and finalizes the package particulars, after which delivery is scheduled at a local participating dealership. During the online process, the customer is given a guaranteed monthly subscription price with the option to upgrade after 12 months and chooses the dealership that will complete the sale. Volvo provides the financing directly through a separate financing branch, and the insurance is provided by Liberty Mutual. The dealer handles the final sales contract, payment, and vehicle hand-off.
While the dealerships participate in the CbV program voluntarily and receive an 8% sales commission, CNCDA claims the process significantly limits the dealer’s ability to build a (profitable) relationship with the customer and eliminates dealer earnings potentials stemming from financing services and other package “add-ons” during the sales process. On its face, this might seem like a reasonable argument, but Volvo’s perspective seems to be addressing customer preferences, a new era of sales strategies, and an effort to reach a new customer market. In an aim to make the brand more appealing to a younger generation accustomed to app-based ride-hailing and a la carte video entertainment services, Volvo may be hoping CbV will help them make inroads towards Millennials in particular.

In an interview with Global Fleet, Alan Visser, CEO of Volvo’s Chinese sister brand, Lynk & Co., detailed how the Millennial connection is explicitly part of that company’s subscription-only business model: “On the other [hand], there is [the] smartphone aspect…Millennials want maximum flexibility and all-inclusive pricing rather than long-term commitments and hassle. Our subscription model is more than just a private lease. It includes services like pick-up and delivery, cleaning, and lots of other things I cannot disclose just yet,” he stated. Also, Lynk & Co intends to only sell hybrids and/or battery electrics, adding yet another Volvo parallel to Tesla. That, and its plan for showcasing its vehicles prior to customer purchase: “In large urban areas we will have so-called offline stores: small, sociable brand boutiques,” Visser additionally explained in the interview.
In their petition, the California dealer’s group made the connection between Lynk & Co and Volvo USA a key part of their case for Volvo’s competition law violation. According to Jalopnik’s review of a pre-production model of Lynk’s first vehicle, the direct-sales subscription is possibly being tested in the US via the Care by Volvo program. “They’re very eager to try out this subscription model of car ownership, or subscribership…They’re sort of testing the waters with the Care by Volvo program, which is proving to be a good plan,” Torchinsky writes, summarizing his talks with the company’s representatives. This article was referenced in CNCDA’s petition against Volvo’s CbV program. Torchinsky goes on to further describe how the dealership experience “sucks” enough for consumers to have opened up a new market for doing car sales business which Lynk has intentionally capitalized on.

Protecting dealers doesn’t appear to be the main priority of CNCDA. In their petition, the New Car Dealers Association seems to be taking the biggest issue with Volvo’s possible negative position on the franchise model entirely, using the legal system as a toolkit to keep customers stuck in an aging infrastructure rather than innovating with the times and finding less restrictive ways to make everyone happy. “‘Subscription programs’ like CbV have been described as a way for the manufacturer to cut out the dealer and ultimately eliminate the franchise model,” the group stated in the introduction of their petition to the New Motor Vehicle Board. Where franchise laws were set up to protect dealers from forced manufacturer bidding, the association seems to be attempting to morph manufacturers wanting to do their own customers’ bidding into an attack on dealer rights. Tesla has certainly encountered this type of morphing even without the challenge of having private dealerships.
In December of last year, a Connecticut state court judge concluded that Tesla’s Greenwich Ave. gallery was operating like a dealership and required a license to do so, something the electric vehicle company is not eligible for because it doesn’t have franchises. The Connecticut Automotive Retailers Trade Association (CARA) was the party responsible for initiating the proceedings which led to the judgment, an organization often at the front lines of defending the state’s franchise laws from would-be offenders. CARA holds the position that vehicle sales should only be conducted through licensed independent dealerships, leaving direct-sales manufacturers like Tesla with limited options for providing its products to customers wanting to buy them.
The car subscription model isn’t unique to Volvo. Luxury car manufacturers especially seem to have also discovered the new market potential of app-driven car flexibility: Access by BMW has price tiers in the $2000-$3700 range for their packages (which include unlimited vehicle swapping), but it’s only available in Nashville, Tennessee for now. The UK-only Carpe by Jaguar Land Rover has $1200-$2900 packages with similar features as CbV, the Mercedez-Benz Collection is similar in price to Carpe, and a few others in that range are being developed and expanded by their respective manufacturers. Several third-party subscription services have also popped up with more flexible lease terms and more economical pricing. Clearly, the trend is showing data points that are worth investment attention.
With all the controversy, it might not even be dealerships that stand to lose the most with subscription models. The case has been made for classifying them as rental cars, which would be another market that might take issue with manufacturers latest ideas for doing business. Some of the services, like Flexdrive, are practically set up to be permanent rental solutions. As with all things, though, only time will tell.
2019-1-15 CNCDA Petition Re… by on Scribd
Elon Musk
Elon Musk tops Forbes’ list of America’s 250 greatest innovators
The ranking places Musk at the top of modern American innovation.
Elon Musk has been ranked No. 1 on Forbes’ inaugural list of America’s 250 Greatest Innovators. The ranking places Musk at the top of modern American innovation as the publication kicks off a series celebrating the nation’s 250th anniversary.
Forbes described innovation as “the grease in the economic engine” and the force that transforms industries and creates new ones. The publication highlighted that its honorees are not just inventors, but business leaders who successfully bring breakthroughs to market.
Musk, 54, was ranked No. 1 in this year’s list. Forbes noted that he is “the only person in history to have founded (or grown from nearly nothing) five companies, each with multibillion-dollar valuations, each in a different industry.” Those companies include Tesla, SpaceX, Neuralink, xAI, and The Boring Company.
Forbes’ methodology began with nearly 1,000 nominees submitted by its reporters. A panel of judges, including venture capitalist Jim Breyer, journalist Kara Swisher, and strategy expert Rita McGrath, ranked candidates based on creativity, breadth, engagement, disruption, and commercial impact. Artificial intelligence tools, including ChatGPT and Gemini, were also used to assess candidates before editors finalized the rankings.
The publication noted that more than one-third of the list consists of women and people of color, reflecting shifts in innovation and entrepreneurship over time. All individuals listed are also American citizens, though many were born abroad, including Musk himself. Musk was born in Pretoria, South Africa.
Ranked No. 2 is Jeff Bezos, 61, who Forbes credited with upending America’s $7.4 trillion retail industry through Amazon before pioneering cloud computing with Amazon Web Services. The publication highlighted that Bezos now focuses on space exploration through Blue Origin and artificial intelligence manufacturing systems at Prometheus.
At No. 3 is Bill Gates, 70, who helped launch the personal computing revolution and built Microsoft into the dominant force in workplace software. Forbes also highlighted Gates’ reinvention at age 50 as a data-driven philanthropist, including his role in helping eradicate polio from India.
Elon Musk
Tesla Model Y tops California vehicle sales despite Elon Musk backlash
Data from the California New Car Dealers Association (CNCDA) showed the Model Y outsold its nearest competitor by more than 50,000 units.
The Tesla Model Y was California’s best-selling new vehicle in 2025 for the fourth straight year, despite protests against CEO Elon Musk and a changeover to the Model Y’s updated variant that caused a pause in production and deliveries early in the year.
Data from the California New Car Dealers Association (CNCDA) showed the Model Y outsold its nearest competitor by more than 50,000 units, according to KRON4.
The Model Y recorded 110,120 registrations in California in 2025. The second-best-selling vehicle, the Toyota RAV4, posted 65,604 units, followed by the Toyota Camry at 62,324. The Tesla Model 3 ranked fourth with 53,989 sales, ahead of the Honda Civic at 53,085 units.
Despite leading the state, Model Y sales have trended downward year-over-year. Registrations fell from 132,636 in 2023 to 128,923 in 2024, and then to 110,120 in 2025. Overall Tesla sales in California also declined, dropping from 238,589 in 2023 to 202,865 in 2024 and 179,656 in 2025.
The slowdown comes as the federal $7,500 EV tax credit ended, removing a key incentive that had supported electric vehicle demand for years.
“Tesla has a few advantages. Tesla, as a brand, has a status, cache, so I think folks in certain parts of the Bay. Owning a Tesla is a thing. I think that’s breaking down over time, especially given the political controversies surrounding Mr. Musk,” CNCDA President Brian Maas said.
California saw multiple anti-Musk protests in 2025, along with notable reports of consumer-owned Teslas being vandalized and attacked by protesters and activists. The fact that the Model Y and Model 3 remained strong performers in California is then a testament to the quality and value of the two vehicles.
Tesla’s sales of the Model Y and Model 3 might see an increase this year, as the company has announced that it is sunsetting its two more expensive cars, the Model S and Model X. With the Model S and Model X retired, more consumers will likely go for the Model Y and Model 3.
“Maybe the Model S has outlived its usefulness in terms of attracting customers. It’s no surprise the ones they kept are the Model Y and Model 3,” Maas noted.
News
Tesla Supercharger left offline as Swedish court backs union strike
The completed Supercharger has been stalled for nearly two years amid Tesla’s conflict with the IF Metall union in Sweden.
Tesla’s Supercharger station in Ljungby, Sweden will remain without power after a Swedish administrative court rejected the company’s appeal to force a grid connection to the site. The completed Supercharger has been stalled for nearly two years amid Tesla’s conflict with the IF Metall union in Sweden.
The court ruled that the ongoing union strike against Tesla Sweden is valid grounds for the Supercharger’s connection delay, as noted in an Allt Om Elbil report.
The Ljungby Supercharger was one of the first charging stations that were denied grid access after IF Metall launched its strike against Tesla Sweden in late 2023. Electricians at local grid operator Ljungby Energinät were pulled into a sympathy strike by the Seko union, preventing the site’s connection.
Tesla reported both Ljungby Energinät and Gävle Energi Elnät AB to the Swedish Energy Market Inspectorate, arguing that grid operators failed to meet their legal obligation to provide connection to the location within a reasonable time frame.
The regulator ruled that the strike represented a valid exception under Swedish law, however, citing constitutional protections for industrial actions.
Tesla responded by appealing to the Administrative Court in Linköping, claiming it had the right to connection within a reasonable period, generally no more than two years. Tesla Sweden also argued that the country’s Electricity Act conflicts with EU law. The court rejected those arguments.
“The Administrative Court today finds that granting the company’s request in practice applies to the same thing as the blockade and that it would mean that the blockade would be ineffective.
“Such a decision would contradict the principle that labor market conflicts should be resolved to the greatest extent possible by the labor market parties, not by the state. The industrial action is also constitutionally protected,” Chief Councilor Ronny Idstrand stated.
The court also concluded that the Electricity Act does not conflict with EU regulations and that special reasons justified the extended delay.
While the ruling was unanimous, Tesla Sweden may appeal the decision to a higher administrative court.