I would expect that the standing issue would be different if dealer for G could show harm by the actions of maker T.

This article gives more info about the decision: http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/09/15/us-tesla-motors-ma...

Drastic and radical changes that happen quickly are probably quite a shock to a lot of business/industries/people. However, we must take care in what "regulation" or "consumer protection" as you call it, we add lest we actually make the subsequent change more drastic and actually harmful(more so than the harm we're trying to prevent by putting the regulation in place).

We're only in this situation because of regulation designed to protect already-invested businesses. At the time it was probably argued that having them fail would be a "dangerous and rapid change", or something to that effect. And the regulation sort of propped up or let the businesses get even more heavily invested into their ideas with no fear of alternative markets etc.

We could argue that if those regulations never got in place, those relatively smallish businesses would have failed at the time. The then owners would have adjusted, started over, or re-tooled their business to fit in.

In the article, he points out that Tesla's been given a lot of taxpayer money plus a lot of incentives for buyers to make their product more attractive. And now they now get to skirt around the market rules that other companies have been stuck with and had to build infrastructure and procedures to deal with more effectively.

Maybe Tesla's handouts should be pared back as they grow and are allowed to bypass the old rules.

Also, their vehicles receive the same incentives as other EVs produced by other manufactures. Perhaps other manufacturers should make more EVs (or EVs people will buy) if they would like to capture the benefit of those government incentives.

Yes, it is a gift. The loan was priced way below market, considering the level of risk and other conditions attached. The difference between the interest rate Tesla paid, and the market interest rate for the same amount of money, is a subsidy (or 'gift', if you prefer) from the taxpayer to Tesla.

http://www.slate.com/articles/business/moneybox/2013/05/tesl...

If you have any thought that the US is an efficient pure free market, I am sorry to inform you that is not the case.

'can you point out taxpayer money they were "given"'

My point is that the subsidised interest rate _is_ taxpayer money they were given. They were given the difference between the market interest and the interest they actually paid.

I'm _not_ arguing either that (i) 'the US is an efficient pure market' or (ii) that this specific subsidy was a good or bad thing.

One could argue that by not taxing the externality of their business (CO2 emissions), auto manufacturer's that make traditional gas guzzlers have been given far more government assistance than Tesla. The incentives that you speak of are intended to produce a positive benefit to society (less pollution) rather than as a handout to help Tesla.

If the law is producing bad outcomes, the legislature should face pressure to change the law. We shouldn't rely on the Court to stretch as far as it can to get the "right" result.

But JackC's summary of the opinion makes a reasonable case that the standing issue was properly decided.