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
News
Doug DeMuro names Tesla Model S the Most Important Car of the last 30 years
In a recent video, the noted reviewer stated that the choice was “not even a question.”
Popular automotive reviewer and YouTuber Doug DeMuro has named the 2012 Tesla Model S as the most important car of the last 30 years.
In a recent video, the noted reviewer stated that the choice was “not even a question,” arguing that the Model S did more to change the trajectory of the auto industry than any other vehicle released since the mid-1990s.
“Unquestionably in my mind, the number one most important car of the last 30 years… it’s not even a question,” DeMuro said. “The 2012 Tesla Model S. There is no doubt that that is the most important car of the last 30 years.”
DeMuro acknowledged that electric vehicle adoption has faced recent headwinds. Still, he maintained that long-term electrification is inevitable.
“If you’re a rational person who’s truthful with yourself, you know that the future is electric… whether it’s 10, 20, 30 years, the future will be electric, and it was the Model S that was the very first car that did that truthfully,” he said.
While earlier EVs like the Nissan Leaf and Chevrolet Volt arrived before the Model S, DeMuro argued that they did not fundamentally shift public perception. The Model S proved that EVs “could be cool, could be fast, could be luxurious, could be for enthusiasts.” It showed that buyers did not have to make major compromises to drive electric.
He also described the Model S as a cultural turning point. Tesla became more than a car company. The brand expanded into Superchargers, home energy products, and a broader tech identity.
DeMuro noted that the Leaf and Volt “made a huge splash and taught us that it was possible.” However, he drew a distinction between being first and bringing a technology into the mainstream.
“It’s rarely about the car that does it first. It’s about the car that brings it into the mainstream,” he said. “The Model S was the car that actually won the game even though the Leaf and Volt scored the first.”
He added that perhaps the Model S’ most surprising achievement was proving that a new American automaker could succeed. For decades, industry observers believed the infrastructure and capital requirements made that nearly impossible.
“For decades, it was generally agreed that there would never be another competitive American car company because the infrastructure and the investment required to start up another American car company as just too challenging… It was just a given basically that you couldn’t do it. And not only did they go it, but they created a cultural icon… That car just truly changed the world,” he said.
Elon Musk
Elon Musk doubles down on Tesla Cybercab timeline once again
“Cybercab, which has no pedals or steering wheel, starts production in April,” Musk said.
CEO Elon Musk doubled down once again on the timeline of production for the Tesla Cybercab, marking yet another example of the confidence he has in the company’s ability to meet the aggressive timeline for the vehicle.
It is the third time in the past six months that Musk has explicitly stated Cybercab will enter production in April 2026.
On Monday morning, Musk reiterated that Cybercab will enter its initial manufacturing phase in April, and that it would not have any pedals or a steering wheel, two things that have been speculated as potential elements of the vehicle, if needed.
Cybercab, which has no pedals or steering wheel, starts production in April https://t.co/yShxZ2HJqp
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) February 16, 2026
Musk has been known to be aggressive with timelines, and some products have been teased for years and years before they finally come to fruition.
One of perhaps the biggest complaints about Musk is the fact that Tesla does not normally reach the deadlines that are set: the Roadster, Semi, and Unsupervised Full Self-Driving suite are a few of those that have been given “end of this year” timelines, but have not been fulfilled.
Nevertheless, many are able to look past this as part of the process. New technology takes time to develop, but we’d rather not hear about when, and just the progress itself.
However, the Cybercab is a bit different. Musk has said three times in the past six months that Cybercab will be built in April, and this is something that is sort of out of the ordinary for him.
In December 2025, he said that Tesla was “testing the production system” of the vehicle and that “real production ramp starts in April.
Elon Musk shares incredible detail about Tesla Cybercab efficiency
On January 23, he said that “Cybercab production starts in April.” He did the same on February 16, marking yet another occasion that Musk has his sights set on April for initial production of the vehicle.
Musk has also tempered expectations for the Cybercab’s initial production phase. In January, he noted that Cybercab would be subjected to the S-curve-type production speed:
“…initial production is always very slow and follows an S-curve. The speed of production ramp is inversely proportionate to how many new parts and steps there are. For Cybercab and Optimus, almost everything is new, so the early production rate will be agonizingly slow, but eventually end up being insanely fast.”
Cybercab will be a huge part of Tesla’s autonomous ride-sharing plans moving forward.
Elon Musk
Tesla owners explore potential FSD pricing options as uncertainty looms
We asked Tesla owners what the company should price Full Self-Driving moving forward, as now it’s going to be subscription-based. There were some interesting proposals.
Tesla is starting the process of removing the ability to purchase the Full Self-Driving suite outright, as it pulled the purchase option in the United States over the weekend.
However, there has been some indication by CEO Elon Musk that the price of the subscription will increase as the suite becomes more robust. But Tesla finds itself in an interesting situation with this: the take rate for Full Self-Driving at $99 per month is about 12 percent, and Musk needs a significant increase in this rate to reach a tranche in his new compensation package.
This leaves Tesla and owners in their own respective limbos: Tesla needs to find a price that will incentivize consumers to use FSD, while owners need Tesla to offer something that is attractive price-wise.
We asked Tesla owners what the company should price Full Self-Driving moving forward, as now it’s going to be subscription-based. There were some interesting proposals.
Price Reduction
Although people are willing to pay the $99 per month for the FSD suite, it certainly is too high for some owners. Many suggested that if Tesla would back down the price to $49, or somewhere around that region, many owners would immediately subscribe.
Others suggested $69, which would make a lot of sense considering Musk’s obsession with that number.
Different Pricing for Supervised and Unsupervised
With the release of the Unsupervised version of Full Self-Driving, Tesla has a unique opportunity to offer pricing for different attention level requirements.
$50/mo for supervised.
$300/mo for unsupervised including insurance.— pɦoɿɟ pᴉʌɒp (@CSUDavid) February 15, 2026
Unsupervised Full Self-Driving would be significantly more expensive, but not needed by everyone. Many people indicate they would still like to drive their cars manually from time to time, but others said they’d just simply be more than okay with only having Supervised FSD available in their cars.
Time-Based Pricing
Tesla could price FSD on a duration-based pricing model, including Daily, Weekly, Monthly, and Annual rates, which would incentivize longer durations with better pricing.
Annually, the rate could be $999 per year, while Monthly would stay at $99. However, a Daily pass of FSD would cost somewhere around $10, while a $30 per week cost seems to be ideal.
These all seem to be in line with what consumers might want. However, Tesla’s attitude with FSD is that it is the future of transportation, and with it offering only a Monthly option currently, it does not seem as if it will look as short-term as a Daily pass.
Tiered Pricing
This is perhaps the most popular option, according to what we’ve seen in comments and replies.
This would be a way to allow owners to pick and choose which FSD features they would like most and pay for them. The more features available to you, the more it costs.
For example, if someone only wanted Supervised driving and Autopark, it could be priced at $50 per month. Add in Summon, it could be $75.
This would allow people to pick only the features they would use daily.
Doug DeMuro names Tesla Model S the Most Important Car of the last 30 years
Elon Musk doubles down on Tesla Cybercab timeline once again
