Love or hate Musk, I think this is a genius way to get around state dealership franchise laws.
https://www.teslarati.com/tesla-2nd-nm-tribal-land-store-bypass-direct-sales-ban/
Article states that they will also be training tribal members for sales and service positions. Would love to see some of our states Tribal partners work with Tesla like this.

Given how pissed off the Oklahoma tribes are at our state government, you can almost guarantee at least one tribe is going to actively work a deal with Tesla in the near future.

I sure hope they do. Plenty of tribal land around the most heavily populated areas of the state to work with.

I wanna see it happen asap.

But car dealers are liable to complain against it and demand the state stop it.

But car dealers are liable to complain against it and demand the state stop it.

The state wouldn't be able to stop it, that's the point of going this route.


This reminds me a lot of the liquor stores and their protectionist laws. Similarly, auto dealers make a lot of money so they have a lot to spend on influencing politics and politicians to protect themselves against the competition. This is the extreme downside of antiquated industries that have become fat on doing what's best for themselves rather than their customers.

in this day and age, auto dealers are outdated and usually nothing but an unnecessary middleman. Every time I've bought a car I've known more about it than the clown trying to earn a commission.

Car dealers have been screwing consumers since their inception which is exactly why so many of them are rich. Given the opportunity, 98% of consumers would rather buy directly from the manufacturer at a set price and without the ridiculous haggling with someone doing their best to screw you over.

The EV revolution is going to put a nail in the coffin of most dealerships. Like all former semi-monopolies, they will refuse to change their ways and keep trying to screw people and then beg for bailouts when they get supplanted by a better way.

The state wouldn't be able to stop it, that's the point of going this route.


This reminds me a lot of the liquor stores and their protectionist laws. Similarly, auto dealers make a lot of money so they have a lot to spend on influencing politics and politicians to protect themselves against the competition. This is the extreme downside of antiquated industries that have become fat on doing what's best for themselves rather than their customers.

in this day and age, auto dealers are outdated and usually nothing but an unnecessary middleman. Every time I've bought a car I've known more about it than the clown trying to earn a commission.

Car dealers have been screwing consumers since their inception which is exactly why so many of them are rich. Given the opportunity, 98% of consumers would rather buy directly from the manufacturer at a set price and without the ridiculous haggling with someone doing their best to screw you over.

The EV revolution is going to put a nail in the coffin of most dealerships. Like all former semi-monopolies, they will refuse to change their ways and keep trying to screw people and then beg for bailouts when they get supplanted by a better way.

Sounds a lot like realtors, another dying business model. The past three houses I bought I found myself the realtor just did the paperwork but honestly I could’ve done that too.

Would love this. Wonder if they would place one near Winstar to be as close to DFW as possible?

The state wouldn't be able to stop it, that's the point of going this route.


This reminds me a lot of the liquor stores and their protectionist laws. Similarly, auto dealers make a lot of money so they have a lot to spend on influencing politics and politicians to protect themselves against the competition. This is the extreme downside of antiquated industries that have become fat on doing what's best for themselves rather than their customers.

in this day and age, auto dealers are outdated and usually nothing but an unnecessary middleman. Every time I've bought a car I've known more about it than the clown trying to earn a commission.

Car dealers have been screwing consumers since their inception which is exactly why so many of them are rich. Given the opportunity, 98% of consumers would rather buy directly from the manufacturer at a set price and without the ridiculous haggling with someone doing their best to screw you over.

The EV revolution is going to put a nail in the coffin of most dealerships. Like all former semi-monopolies, they will refuse to change their ways and keep trying to screw people and then beg for bailouts when they get supplanted by a better way.

this would be an expansion not really covered in Mcgirt which will likely lead to another federal lawsuit and likely end up back at SCOTUS and then either open the flood gates or permentally restrict the tribes

this would be an expansion not really covered in Mcgirt which will likely lead to another federal lawsuit and likely end up back at SCOTUS and then either open the flood gates or permentally restrict the tribes
May be more like smoke shops than McGirt. Lots of precedent.

May be more like smoke shops than McGirt. Lots of precedent.

And Casinos.

Scott Tucker ran the tribal land workaround in states that prohibited payday lending and ended up in the federal clink. Granted, i doubt the current iteration of the FTC would intervene on behalf of consumers were Tesla to follow in Tucker’s footsteps. The Tucker documentary on Netflix is great, btw.

As for alternative models, I think a lot of folks viewed Carvana as a viable replacement to traditional dealers. But carvana looks to be headed straight for bankruptcy court. Those boys are burning through tons of cash.

And Carvana and Carmax are exclusively used-car dealers, which is completely different.

Direct-to-consumer new car sales are the wave of the future and will be fought because car dealers have a ton of money (from fleecing customers) and will do everything they can to protect their cash cows.

And Casinos.

Casinos operate under compacts with the State. What is happening here ain't that.

Considering that the SCOTUS just kneecapped McGirt, it would seem an inopportune time for tribal interests to be picking this fight.

This was debated in another thread ( https://www.okctalk.com/showthread.php?t=45465&page=5 ) earlier this year. It cam up when oklahoma legislature tried to further protect the Bob Moore/Howards of Oklahoma with even more anti-competitive laws. Its completely unnecessary and anti-free market to not let someone buy direct from manufacturer just because they dont have a big shiny dealership in the state. Like I said in that thread, it'd be like banning Nike from selling online to consumers if they didnt have an actual Nike store in the state.

Heres more on the bill that was proposed earlier this year. Thankfully it died.
https://journalrecord.com/2022/03/14/tesla-sales-model-comes-under-scrutiny-from-lawmakers/

On land held in trust by the federal government for Indian tribes there is no issue. The state cannot stop it and federal lawsuits would be useless. The state lacks authority over businesses on such lands. If Tesla is using trust land, there is no McGirt issue.

Casinos operate under compacts with the State. What is happening here ain't that.

Considering that the SCOTUS just kneecapped McGirt, it would seem an inopportune time for tribal interests to be picking this fight.

that was my thought .... thank you for your (much more informed ) thoughts ..

On land held in trust by the federal government for Indian tribes there is no issue. The state cannot stop it and federal lawsuits would be useless. The state lacks authority over businesses on such lands. If Tesla is using trust land, there is no McGirt issue.

It's a whole lot more complicated than that. From the limited reporting I have read, the New Mexico government has some sort of an agreement for tax revenue sharing and seems to have blessed this arrangement. Whether that same arrangement will work in Oklahoma, especially since New Mexico tribes generally have in-tact reservations and Oklahoma tribes don't, whether such a thing works here is a complicated question that no one knows the answer to--much like tribal water rights in Eastern Oklahoma, where in the not distant past, our courts were hosting symposiums for speakers on all sides of the issue.

There was some question with respect to criminal jurisdiction of the state on tribal land--and that jurisdiction has as of late found to be concurrent. The raising of whether civil laws and regulations has really on been raised in theory, and to posit that state laws simply don't apply on tribal land is actually pretty laughable at this juncture. There are certainly a lot of people who wish that was the case, but it's almost definitely not the case.

Our state almost made direct sales and service illegal in the immediate past legislative session. Tesla would be well advised to stop poking the bear.

It is not more complicated than that. I'm not talking about tax issues. The state cannot stop a business on trust land licensed by an Indian tribe. Casinos do not have to operate under a compact with the state if they are Class II. On trust land, Telsa and Indian tribes are completely within their rights to do this. The law is clear.

It is not more complicated than that. I'm not talking about tax issues. The state cannot stop a business on trust land licensed by an Indian tribe. Casinos do not have to operate under a compact with the state if they are Class II. On trust land, Telsa and Indian tribes are completely within their rights to do this. The law is clear.

Actually, it is. See, e.g., https://www.marketplace.org/2022/07/04/supreme-court-decision-creates-uncertainty-for-businesses-operating-in-indian-country/amp/

Actually, it is. See, e.g., https://www.marketplace.org/2022/07/04/supreme-court-decision-creates-uncertainty-for-businesses-operating-in-indian-country/amp/

That only impacts non reserved lands in the 5 Civilized Tribal nations. It has zero impact on reserved lands.

Casinos operate under compacts with the State. What is happening here ain't that.

Considering that the SCOTUS just kneecapped McGirt, it would seem an inopportune time for tribal interests to be picking this fight.

Picking a fight? LOL. Someone defending themselves from the bully isn't "picking a fight". The First American Nations are just trying to exercise rights already granted to them (aside from those rights and lands taken from them) and our state leadership thinks that is fighting. WOW.

Picking a fight? LOL. Someone defending themselves from the bully isn't "picking a fight". The First American Nations are just trying to exercise rights already granted to them (aside from those rights and lands taken from them) and our state leadership thinks that is fighting. WOW.

my apologies ..


the rights the tribes are not trying to exercise largely didn't exist pre McGirt

Picking a fight? LOL. Someone defending themselves from the bully isn't "picking a fight". The First American Nations are just trying to exercise rights already granted to them (aside from those rights and lands taken from them) and our state leadership thinks that is fighting. WOW.

They are trying to not follow state law in the State and denying the State sovereignty over its own territory.

It is not so clear cut as you claim that they have the right to ignore state law in this area and the tribal reservations in New Mexico present a very different legal situation from Oklahoma Indian Country.

You can go and virtue signal all you want. It's cool and we know that you feel--very strongly--about this, and good for you and stuff.

That doesn't change the fact that Oklahoma just won a 5-4 verdict kneecapping tribal sovereignty in this State, and that it stands to reason that if the SCOTUS was asked to rule whether absent an agreement with the State, tribes would be free to ignore state laws on direct to consumer sales on trust land, that vote would be similar. And if the State was to go beyond making this a civil regulartory scheme and attach some criminal liability for anyone operating a direct to consumer operation outside of the dealership model? Well that'd clearly fall within the concurrent jurisdiction of the State to enforce criminal laws within its own borders.

So considering that the makeup of the SCOTUS is likely to be more favorable in the next 100+ years and the tribal nations plan to exist in perpetuity, what in the world would possess them to want to go and create new law with this particular SCOTUS?

I'd love to be able to have a discussion about this subject without all of the virtue signalling though. It adds nothing to the conversation.

I am talking about Trust Lands, the link April in the Plaza posted concerns Indian country. Two totally separate and distinct concepts. Indian country is, more or less, anything inside an Indian reservation's boundaries. Trust land is specific parcels of land held in trust by the United States for the benefit of Indian tribes. Again, on trust lands there is nothing the State can do to stop this. This is not complicated.

McGirt and Castro Huerta have nothing to do with TRUST LAND. They concerns activities of the state inside reservation boundaries (which is not the same as trust land). These are two totally different things. States do not have any civil jurisdiction over trust lands. There is literally nothing the State can do to stop Tesla from selling cars on trust land with a license from an Indian tribe, except go to Congress and get it to pass a new law on the subject.

Actually, I suppose the state could make it a CRIME to purchase a car from a manufacturer in the state and then prosecute non-Indians who buy a Telsa on trust lands. So that would be fun. (edited)

I am talking about Trust Lands, the link April in the Plaza posted concerns Indian country. Two totally separate and distinct concepts. Indian country is, more or less, anything inside an Indian reservation's boundaries. Trust land is specific parcels of land held in trust by the United States for the benefit of Indian tribes. Again, on trust lands there is nothing the State can do to stop this. This is not complicated.

It is not nearly as clear cut as that.

Especially, as I said before, if the State was to attach some criminal liability to the direct to consumer sales law. Then, the State would per SCOTUS precedent, now have concurrent jurisdictino with the tribes and feds to enforce state law. Lands held in trust are generally thought to be within the sole jurisdiction of the tribe (subject to federal law) for civil regulation, but the State can very easily up the ante by attaching criminal liablity, and with state law, what is strictly criminal and strictly civil regulation is not always clear cut.

lol at this take

Don't do that.

You want to get the thread locked because you wanted to make it about Ds and Rs? More of that.

Midtowner, you are right about the criminal aspect. I edited my post above to address that. I was talking about civil law previously.

Don't do that.

You want to get the thread locked because you wanted to make it about Ds and Rs? More of that.

agreed my apologies edited my post

Midtowner, you are right about the criminal aspect. I edited my post above to address that. I was talking about civil law previously.

I would imagine the State wouldn't make it a crime to buy, it'd make it a crime to sell. They could then prosecute the entire dealership under a RICO theory. As I've said over and over, it's just an inopportune time for the tribes to be picking fights they ultimately can't win. Especially when they have completely alienated the governor's office. Their only hope is to make inroads with their local rural legislators, but those guys are going to be hard pressed to buck a governor who just won as big as Stitt just did.

Last year we very nearly saw the OKC Tesla showroom/service center shut down as the dealerships are still a powerful voice in our legislature.

I doubt Musk will care what harm will come to tribal interests if this plan fails. The Tribes are going to have to be the adults in the room and openly courting this sort of thing without negotiating compacts with the State would be a big mistake.

And if the State isn't willing to negotiate? Well then, for a sovereign nation, 4 years isn't very long to wait.

I just hate all of this. It is insane to me that dealers have this much control over our legislature. I'd rather just order a car online. To me, dealerships provide no value at all.

I just hate all of this. It is insane to me that dealers have this much control over our legislature. I'd rather just order a car online. To me, dealerships provide no value at all.

It is that way in most states. Oklahoma is not an exception, in this case.

According to this, Oklahoma is only one of 10 states that completely bans direct-to-consumer car sales:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tesla_US_dealership_disputes


The Federal Trade Commission recommends allowing direct manufacturer sales, which a 2000 report by a Goldman Sachs analyst projected would save consumers an average of $2,225 on a $26,000 car

To me, dealerships provide no value at all.

I've never understood this line of thinking. I don't want to purchase a vehicle if I don't have a local dealership that I can work with to get parts and service. While I certainly have my gripes about car dealerships and salesmen, I also see the value of being able to take my wife's mini to an actual BMW/mini dealership rather than some random import shop, or my Harley to a licensed Harley dealer. The franchise model we operate under ensures that there is a local presence to support the products, and ostensibly, also to engender competition within a brand at a benefit to consumers (although supply issues have rendered this moot). Now I won't argue this system has its flaws, and it is certainly outdated and probably should be replaced - but I'll argue against dealerships providing no value.

^

All that would still be the case. Traditional dealerships would still service cars and in the case of Tesla (and likely future EV brands) they set up service centers.

The only thing that would change would be taking out the middleman when it comes to sales.

^

All that would still be the case. Traditional dealerships would still service cars and in the case of Tesla (and likely future EV brands) they set up service centers.

The only thing that would change would be taking out the middleman when it comes to sales.

And I see that, but there is still value (to me) in having that person be someone based locally. Like I said, the system is outdated and probably should be replaced - I'm not arguing that and I'm fine with allowing direct sales - but I think the franchise/dealer model does have benefits and I don't think the value of dealerships should be dismissed out of hand.

Also, while all of this COULD still be the case, it's not for sure if a company decides the market doesn't justify a dealership. The franchise model could be argued to be more stable and provide better coverage.

^

All that would still be the case. Traditional dealerships would still service cars and in the case of Tesla (and likely future EV brands) they set up service centers.

The only thing that would change would be taking out the middleman when it comes to sales.

Interesting and timely article. Have no idea how GM gets genuine Tesla parts for repairs, but it's definitely a fortunate situation for the Tesla owners. However, you have to wonder if the GM work would void any Tesla warranties?

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/why-gm-dealers-are-quietly-repairing-teslas-11669396882

Also, while all of this COULD still be the case, it's not for sure if a company decides the market doesn't justify a dealership. The franchise model could be argued to be more stable and provide better coverage.

Then here's a crazy idea--let them compete with each other.

Then here's a crazy idea--let them compete with each other.

I'd prefer that but in my experience companies that go the direct sales route don't tend to also allow franchise sales.

Interesting and timely article. Have no idea how GM gets genuine Tesla parts for repairs, but it's definitely a fortunate situation for the Tesla owners. However, you have to wonder if the GM work would void any Tesla warranties?

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/why-gm-dealers-are-quietly-repairing-teslas-11669396882

We need better right to repair legislation in the US. In the non-car world, Samsung drives me nuts because they require their phones to ONLY be serviced through their service centers, and there's not one locally so it's about shipping it off or having repairs done locally and voiding my warranty.

I'd prefer that but in my experience companies that go the direct sales route don't tend to also allow franchise sales.

Lots of traditional car manufacturers are talking about a direct sales model for their EV products.

And as I've mentioned before, there are a ton of new EV startups that will completely forgo the antiquated dealership model. And that's exactly why legacy car companies will need to change their sales model in order to stay competitive.


Since EV's have far fewer moving parts, your next car might be from Sony/Honda or Apple or Google or a Chinese company that doesn't yet exist. There is a big paradigm shift away from heavy manufacturing to software and technology. Will be fascinating to watch.

Interesting and timely article. Have no idea how GM gets genuine Tesla parts for repairs, but it's definitely a fortunate situation for the Tesla owners. However, you have to wonder if the GM work would void any Tesla warranties?

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/why-gm-dealers-are-quietly-repairing-teslas-11669396882

The GM dealers order them from Tesla just like any other repair shop. Having a person who is not trained by Teslsa work on your car does not void your warranty. That is a violation of federal law. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnuson%E2%80%93Moss_Warranty_Act
I know that even before Covid Tesla was horrible at keeping parts in stock and readily available for repairs so I can't imagine how bad it is now.

If they're doing this in NM I don't know why OK wouldn't be next. Except maybe Tesla has been holding out hope that OK would change its laws so they can put a sales center wherever they want in OKC and Tulsa. I just spent several days in Albuquerque and saw one Tesla. It's not a scientific study obviously, but the rate of Teslas being sold OK seems to be much greater in OK than in NM. There are more on my street than I saw in NM in 5 days.

If they're doing this in NM I don't know why OK wouldn't be next. Except maybe Tesla has been holding out hope that OK would change its laws so they can put a sales center wherever they want in OKC and Tulsa. I just spent several days in Albuquerque and saw one Tesla. It's not a scientific study obviously, but the rate of Teslas being sold OK seems to be much greater in OK than in NM. There are more on my street than I saw in NM in 5 days.

Midtowner lays out the differences between Oklahoma and New Mexico in post #18. The Tribes could fight it, but would they really want to? Lets say best cast scenario the tribes are allowed to open Telsa facilities. The state could just turn around and let Telsa do direct sales. Good chance Tesla closes though facilities and place them in more optimal locations in the city.