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
ARK’s SpaceX IPO Guide makes a compelling case on why $1.75T may not be the ceiling
ARK Invest breaks down six reasons SpaceX’s $1.75 trillion IPO valuation may be justified.
ARK Invest, which holds SpaceX as its largest Venture Fund position at 17% of net assets, has published a detailed investor guide to why a SpaceX IPO may be grounded in a $1.75 trillion target valuation.
The financial case starts with Starlink, SpaceX’s satellite internet constellation, which has surpassed 10 million active subscribers globally as of early 2026, with 2026 revenue projected to exceed $20 billion. ARK’s research puts the total satellite connectivity market opportunity at roughly $160 billion annually at scale, and Starlink is adding customers faster than any telecom network in history. That growth alone would justify a substantial valuation.
Additionally, ARK notes that SpaceX has reduced the cost per kilogram to orbit from roughly $15,600 in 2008 to under $1,000 today through reusable Falcon 9 hardware. A fully operational Starship targeting sub-$100 per kilogram would represent a significant cost decline and open markets that do not currently exist. SpaceX executed a staggering 165 missions in 2025 and now accounts for approximately 85% of all global orbital launches. That infrastructure position took decades to build and would be nearly impossible to replicate at comparable cost.
SpaceX officially acquires xAI, merging rockets with AI expertise
The February 2026 merger with xAI added a layer to the valuation that straightforward financial models struggle to capture. ARK argues that at sub-$100 launch costs, orbital data centers could deliver compute roughly 25% cheaper than ground-based alternatives, without power grid delays, permitting friction, or land constraints. Musk has stated a goal of deploying 100 gigawatts of AI computing capacity per year from orbit.
The $1.75 trillion figure itself is not a conventional earnings multiple. At roughly 95x trailing revenue, it prices in Starlink’s adoption curve, Starship’s cost trajectory, and the orbital compute thesis together. The public S-1 prospectus, due at least 15 days before the June roadshow, will give investors their first complete look at the financials to test those assumptions. ARK’s position is that the track record earns the benefit of the doubt. Fully reusable rockets were considered unrealistic for years. Starlink was considered financially unviable. Both happened on timelines that surprised skeptics.
Elon Musk
Ford CEO Farley says Tesla is not who to look at for EV expertise
Interestingly, Farley has been one of the most hellbent CEOs in terms of a legacy automaker standpoint to push the EV effort. It did not go according to plan, as Ford took a $19.5 billion charge and retreated from its EV push in late 2025.
Ford CEO Jim Farley said in a recent podcast interview that Tesla is not who Americans should look at to beat Chinese carmakers.
The comments have sparked quite a bit of outrage from Tesla fans on X, the social media platform owned by Elon Musk.
Farley said that Chinese automakers are better examples of how to beat competitors. He said (via the Rapid Response Podcast):
“If you’re an American and you want us to beat the Chinese in the car business, you’re all going to want to pay attention, not necessarily to Tesla. Nothing against Tesla—they’ve been doing great—but they really don’t have an updated vehicle. The best in the business for us, cost-wise and competition-wise, supply chain, manufacturing expertise, and the I.P. in the vehicle, was really BYD. In this next cycle of EV customers in the U.S., they want pickups and utilities and all these different body styles. But they want them at $30,000, not $50,000. Like the first inning, they want them affordably.”
Despite Farley’s synopsis, it is worth mentioning that Tesla had the best-selling passenger vehicle in the world last year, and in China in March, as the Model Y continued its global dominance over other vehicles.
Musk responded to Farley’s comments by stating:
“This is before Supervised FSD is approved in China. Limiting factor is production output in Shanghai.”
This is before supervised FSD is approved in China. Limiting factor is production output in Shanghai.
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) April 19, 2026
Interestingly, Farley has been one of the most hellbent CEOs in terms of a legacy automaker standpoint to push the EV effort. It did not go according to plan, as Ford took a $19.5 billion charge and retreated from its EV push in late 2025.
Ford cancels all-electric F-150 Lightning, announces $19.5 billion in charges
Instead, Ford is “doubling down on its affordable” EVs and said it would pivot from its previous plans.
Reaction from Tesla fans was pretty much how you would expect. Many said they have lost a lot of respect for Farley after his comments; others believe he is the last CEO anyone should be taking advice on EVs from.
Nevertheless, Farley’s plans are bold and brash; many consider Tesla the most ideal company to replicate EV efforts from. It will be interesting to see if Ford can rebound from this big adjustment, and hopefully, Farley’s plans to replicate efforts from BYD work out the way he hopes.
Elon Musk
SpaceX wins its first MARS contract but it comes with a catch
NASA awarded SpaceX a $175 million Mars rover contract while the White House proposes cutting the mission.
NASA just signed a $175.7 million contract with SpaceX to launch a Mars rover that the White House is simultaneously trying to defund. The contract, awarded on April 16, 2026, tasks SpaceX’s Falcon Heavy with launching the European Space Agency’s (ESA) Rosalind Franklin rover from Kennedy Space Center in Florida, no earlier than late 2028. It would mark the first time SpaceX has ever sent a payload to Mars.
Under NASA’s Rosalind Franklin Support and Augmentation project, known as ROSA, the agency is providing braking engines for the rover’s descent stage, radioisotope heater units that use decaying plutonium to keep the rover warm on the Martian surface, additional electronics, and a mass spectrometer instrument, as noted by SpaceNews.
Those nuclear heating units are the reason an American rocket was required at all. U.S. export controls on radioisotope technology mean any payload carrying them must launch on a domestic vehicle, which narrowed the field to SpaceX and United Launch Alliance. Falcon Heavy’s pricing made it the practical choice.
SpaceX is quietly becoming the U.S. Military’s only reliable rocket
Falcon Heavy debuted in February 2018 and has 11 launches to its record. The rocket has not flown since October 2024, when it sent NASA’s Europa Clipper toward Jupiter. The three-core design, built from modified Falcon 9 first stages, gives it the lift capacity needed for deep space planetary missions that a single Falcon 9 cannot reach.
The Rosalind Franklin rover has been sitting in storage in Europe for years. It was originally due to launch in 2022 as a joint mission with Russia, but Russia’s invasion of Ukraine ended that partnership, leaving the rover built but stranded without a launch vehicle or landing hardware. NASA stepped back in through a 2024 agreement with ESA to rescue the mission. The rover is designed to drill up to two meters below the Martian surface in search of evidence of past life, a science objective no previous mission has attempted at that depth.
The contradiction at the center of this story is hard to ignore. The White House’s fiscal year 2027 budget proposal included no funding for ROSA and did not mention the mission at all in the detailed congressional justification document released April 3.
Musk has long argued that reaching Mars is not optional. “We don’t want to be one of those single planet species, we want to be a multi-planet species.” Whether this particular mission survives Washington’s budget fight, the Falcon Heavy contract means SpaceX is now formally on record as the rocket that could get humanity’s next Mars science mission off the ground.
The timing of this contract carries extra weight given that SpaceX filed confidentially with the SEC in early April and is targeting an IPO roadshow in the week of June 8. It would be the largest public offering in history.
ARK’s SpaceX IPO Guide makes a compelling case on why $1.75T may not be the ceiling
Ford CEO Farley says Tesla is not who to look at for EV expertise
