In 2012, California’s capital was the site of a yearlong battle between state lawmakers and buy here, pay here dealers. Two new laws designed to protect consumers are now on the books, and dealers say they’re causing headaches on both sides of the sale.
The NIADA, its newly-formed BHPH Commission and Oregon’s independent dealer association are tackling legislation the industry believes could damage the ability of high-risk consumers to purchase cars in the state.
Four bills up for consideration in the current legislative session would change how dealers do business in the state. The bills were proposed by Republicans who view the current dealer laws as anti-competitive.
The website, called “Tesla Crash,” was launched by the Connecticut Automotive Retailers Association in response to a bill that would allow the electric automaker to sell directly to consumers in the state.
Earlier this month, Idaho’s House Transportation and Defense Committee narrowly affirmed regulations that would mandate how long car dealers should be open each week.
Rep. Ken Ivory (R-Utah) has introduced legislation that would send the sales-tax revenue from car sales to the hometown of the car buyer, instead of the city where the dealership is located.
Seven financial organizations issued a letter to the U.S. House of Representatives on May 29 in support of an amendment to an appropriations bill that would limit Justice Department litigation relying on the disparate impact theory of discrimination.
A bill that would allow Tesla to sell directly to consumers won’t be voted on during Arizona’s current legislative session, which ends this week.
A bill signed by Washington governor Jay Inslee this month will allow Tesla to expand in the state.
The Federal trade Commission issued a letter last week in support of legislation that would overturn Illinois’ long-standing ban on Sunday car sales. Dealers in the state, however, remain steadfastly opposed to the bill.
