Zenefits Was the Perfect Startup, Then It Self-Disrupted

Re:Zenefits Was the Perfect Startup, Then It Self-Disrupted by icebraining on Monday May 09, 2016 @11:41AM (#11660628)

Since many states hadn't seen that before, they tried to rule that it was illegal due to dealer-sales regulation.

I don't see what being online has anything to do with it; the spirit of the rule - preventing the manufacturers from competing with dealerships - is valid anyway. I personally disagree with this rule, but the "online" part is just Tesla trying to get off on a technicality.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Zenefits Was the Perfect Startup, Then It Self-Disrupted by msandford on Monday May 09, 2016 @11:50AM (#11660724)

I'm all for manufacturers being prevented from going back on the deals they struck with dealers; the capital they raised from selling dealership franchises was very important for the growth of the manufacturers.

But if a manufacturer never setup a dealer program? Fair game to them, IMO.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Zenefits Was the Perfect Startup, Then It Self-Disrupted by csours on Monday May 09, 2016 @12:35PM (#11661092)

It's one step more complicated than that. GM has 5 year renewable franchises, so theoretically they could just wait 5 years and not renew.

The issue is that many states have laws preventing OEMs from selling directly.

There are similar laws for unions.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Zenefits Was the Perfect Startup, Then It Self-Disrupted by outericky on Monday May 09, 2016 @01:24PM (#11661487)

I feel the laws preventing OEMS selling directly are antiquated. Dealerships are a scam. It's a game of "how much can i squeeze out of the other party" - which generally is bad for consumers. Since most aren't trained to take advantage. OEM's don't need to sell directly, but allowing a "store" model where prices are fixed, non negotiable would likely be best for everyone in the long run. Well, except for the dealers. But at least there would be predictability. Dealers shouldn't be a protected party - the consumer should be.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Zenefits Was the Perfect Startup, Then It Self-Disrupted by jacalata on Monday May 09, 2016 @03:31PM (#11662466)

The laws are intended to protect the consumer by making sure there are physical places that can repair your car in the state. The question is whether that's necessary any more.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Zenefits Was the Perfect Startup, Then It Self-Disrupted by icebraining on Monday May 09, 2016 @04:25PM (#11662845)

The laws are intended to protect the consumer by making sure there are physical places that can repair your car in the state.

A law that forced OEMs who wanted to sell directly to have repair shops in the region would have that intention. In this case, it's pure window dressing.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Zenefits Was the Perfect Startup, Then It Self-Disrupted by outericky on Monday May 09, 2016 @07:01PM (#11663935)

Yes, but that has nothing to do with dealerships as a POS location. Tesla should be able to have a store, and be regulated to make sure it provides service locations for vehicles.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Zenefits Was the Perfect Startup, Then It Self-Disrupted by jacalata on Monday May 09, 2016 @10:33PM (#11664820)

Sure, if you answer the first question with "yes there needs to be physical service points in the state". I believe some people think this is unnecessary altogether though, so they argue for scrapping the entire law instead of changing it to allow for new ways of meeting the same goal.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Zenefits Was the Perfect Startup, Then It Self-Disrupted by toomuchtodo on Monday May 09, 2016 @12:59PM (#11661302)

> I don't see what being online has anything to do with it

States regulate auto manufacturers from competing with their dealerships; Tesla selling online would be a federal issue (interstate commerce).

Ergo, Tesla gets around bad regulatory capture by using a law that supersedes state law.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Zenefits Was the Perfect Startup, Then It Self-Disrupted by icebraining on Monday May 09, 2016 @01:00PM (#11661311)

Being a federal issue doesn't preclude it being a state issue as well, as far as I know.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Zenefits Was the Perfect Startup, Then It Self-Disrupted by dragonwriter on Monday May 09, 2016 @01:03PM (#11661334)

Interstate commerce being a federal power under the Constitution prohibits states acting to regulate interstate commerce where the federal government has acted, without the permission of Congress, and prohibits the States from discriminating against out-of-state commerce generally. That doesn't mean that all State regulation of interstate commerce is prohibited, but the State's power is sharply circumscribed by the mere designation of the federal power as well as by federal action exercising that power.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Zenefits Was the Perfect Startup, Then It Self-Disrupted by icebraining on Monday May 09, 2016 @01:41PM (#11661624)

Are you making a general point, or is this particular rule affected by such restrictions?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Zenefits Was the Perfect Startup, Then It Self-Disrupted by dragonwriter on Monday May 09, 2016 @01:49PM (#11661688)

AFAIK, Tesla's argument in the cases over the direct-sales rule has been that the particular rule is a violation of the Commerce Clause at least as applied against Tesla's online sales, though I don't think any federal court has yet ruled on the specific issue.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Zenefits Was the Perfect Startup, Then It Self-Disrupted by toomuchtodo on Monday May 09, 2016 @02:03PM (#11661812)

I believe Tesla wants to handle this at the federal level, to negate the state's restrictions all in one go.

[ Parent | on HN ]