Dealer law today · Reference · TFR-2026-10

The same question, live: can a manufacturer sell around its own dealers?

First published 2026-08-05 · Last substantively revised 2026-08-05 · State of the record as of 2026-08-05

As of August 5, 2026, no court in the United States has decided on the merits whether a manufacturer may use a separately branded affiliate to sell vehicles directly to consumers over the heads of its own franchised dealers. What exists is one federal order refusing to dismiss the question, filed March 30, 2026 in San Diego; two more federal suits at earlier stages; two state-court challenges; a separate California state case reading the same statutory word; and a Washington statute, effective June 11, 2026, that widens an exemption while writing it so that no manufacturer with franchised dealers can fit through it. Each item’s posture is stated in the sentence that carries it, and this page is dated because it will change.

§1 The frame

¶In 2009 the question was whether a manufacturer could end a franchise. The answer, inside a bankruptcy, was yes: the court supervising Chrysler’s Chapter 11 held the state dealer statutes preempted by section 365 of the Bankruptcy Code with respect to the rejection of 789 dealer agreements, and rejection was reviewed for business judgment.1 That history is covered separately in why state good-cause protections did not stop the 2009 terminations.

¶The 2026 question is different in a way that matters. Nobody is terminating anyone. The dispute is whether a manufacturer that keeps its franchised network intact may stand up a separate brand under the same corporate parent and sell to the public through that brand instead. If it may, the franchise agreement still covers exactly the products it always covered — and the products that grow can be routed elsewhere.

§2 The shared rule

¶There is no federal statute on the point. There are state statutes, and across them one rule recurs: a licensed manufacturer or distributor may not itself act as a dealer in competition with its own franchisees. California bars a licensee, acting “directly or indirectly through an affiliate,” from competing “with their franchisees in the sale, lease, or warranty service of new motor vehicles.”2 Washington bars a manufacturer from competing with a dealer “by acting in the capacity of a new motor vehicle dealer, or by owning, operating, or controlling, whether directly or indirectly,” a dealership.3 Both carry exemptions, and the exemptions are where the fight is.

§3 The affiliate clause, and what actually changed in 2024

¶California Assembly Bill 473, enacted in the 2023–2024 regular session, amended Vehicle Code section 11713.3 effective January 1, 2024. What it changed is narrower than the shorthand suggests, and the distinction matters. The phrase “directly or indirectly through an affiliate” was already there. It sits in the opening line of the section and governs every prohibition in it, and the San Diego court records that the language “has been consistently used in the statute since 2012.”2 What AB 473 rewrote was the competition clause itself. Through 2023 a licensee was barred from competing “with a dealer in the same line-make … in the relevant market area”; since January 1, 2024 it is barred from competing “with their franchisees in the sale, lease, or warranty service of new motor vehicles.” Told that the older wording had been the broader one, the court disagreed in a footnote: the current version is “broader” because it “removed the ‘line-make’ and ‘relevant market area’ restrictions for competition.”2 The prohibition therefore no longer depends on the affiliate selling the same badge in the same territory as the franchisee it is said to be competing with.

¶The statute defines that word, and the definition is the case. Parties are affiliated when one person controls another, is controlled by another, or “is under the common direction and control with” another.4 The third branch reaches a sibling company — two subsidiaries of one parent, neither owning any part of the other.

§4 The ruling, read exactly

¶The California New Car Dealers Association, which by the court’s recitation represents more than 1,400 franchised new car and truck dealers, sued Volkswagen Group of America, Volkswagen AG and the two Scout entities. Its claims are unfair competition under California Business and Professions Code section 17200 and false advertising under section 17500; the relief sought is equitable. Scout removed the case from San Diego Superior Court on May 22, 2025.5

¶At the centre of it is a document, not a car. The order records that Scout “announced plans to begin vehicle production in 2026 and to release vehicles to the public in 2027.” What California consumers can do today is sign a Reservation Agreement and place a refundable $100.00 reservation.5

¶On March 30, 2026, Chief Judge Cynthia Bashant ruled on three motions to dismiss. What the order did, in its own concluding words:

Accordingly, the Court DENIES Defendant VWGoA’s motion to dismiss. … The Court further GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN PART Scout’s motion to dismiss. Specifically, the Court grants Scout’s motion to dismiss the FAL claim for failure to plead reliance, dismissing the FAL claim without prejudice; and the Court denies Scout’s motion to dismiss the UCL claim. The Court, finally, GRANTS VWAG’s motion to dismiss without prejudice.

Order Granting in Part and Denying in Part Defendants’ Motions to Dismiss, CNCDA v. Volkswagen of America, Inc., No. 3:25-cv-01316-BAS-DEB (S.D. Cal. Mar. 30, 2026), ECF No. 66, at 29

¶Two statutory readings inside that order are why it matters. First, on the word “through”: Volkswagen Group of America argued the phrase “indirectly through an affiliate” required some direction on its part. The court disagreed, holding that the phrase “does not require VWGoA’s direction for liability,” that “through” introduces “the means by which” a manufacturer competes, and that the statutory definition of affiliate “extends to relationships between subsidiaries under a common parent,” because “the connection of a common parent is enough.”5

¶Second, on the word “sale”: the defendants argued that a reservation is not a completed sale, so nothing has yet been violated. The court held the statute “does not require a completed sale,” because what it forbids is competition “in the sale,” and noted the consequence of the contrary reading — “if the sale is already finished, one can no longer compete in the sale.” It concluded that the plaintiff “properly alleges that the Reservation Agreement creates competition in the sale of new motor vehicles.”5

¶What that is not. It is a refusal to dismiss. Every one of those holdings is a ruling about what the plaintiff has adequately alleged, made on the pleadings with all inferences drawn in the plaintiff’s favour; the court’s own summary sentence begins “as alleged.” No fact has been found and no injunction has issued. The German parent, Volkswagen AG, was dismissed for lack of personal jurisdiction, and the false-advertising claim was dismissed because the association’s causal chain — consumer reserves, dealer loses a sale, dealer complains, association spends money — was “too attenuated” to plead reliance.5

¶What the docket shows since. The association did not amend. Scout and Volkswagen Group of America answered on April 20, 2026, and on June 23 both moved for judgment on the pleadings and to stay discovery; a magistrate judge denied the stays on July 28. A scheduling order sets a settlement conference for October 28, 2026 and trial for May 25, 2027.6

§5 The other fronts, each with its posture

¶Eastern District of Virginia. Sunrise Imports, LLC v. Volkswagen Group of America, Inc., No. 1:26-cv-00621, was filed March 3, 2026 before Judge Rossie D. Alston, Jr. The plaintiffs of record are Sunrise Imports, LLC and Curran Volkswagen, Inc.; the defendants are Volkswagen Group of America, Volkswagen AG and the two Scout entities. The docket records the cause as “28:1332 Diversity-Breach of Contract” and the nature of suit as “190 Contract - Other Contract,” which is the clerk’s classification rather than a description of the claims. Three motions to dismiss were filed June 18, 2026; a single consolidated opposition followed on July 17, and reply briefs are due August 17 under a coordinated briefing order entered March 24. The motions had been noticed for hearing on September 2, 2026; on June 26 chambers terminated that hearing, directing that they be decided on the papers with no oral argument.7 Trade reporting describes this as a putative class action for Volkswagen dealers nationwide; this publication has not obtained the complaint — it is docketed as ECF No. 1, but the document itself is not free in the public RECAP archive — and therefore describes no specific allegation from it.

¶Western District of Washington. Washington State Auto Dealers Association v. Scout Motors Inc, No. 2:26-cv-02260, was filed June 29, 2026. As of August 5, 2026 the docket shows service completed July 21 and the case reassigned July 28; no responsive pleading has been filed; the last entry is a stipulated motion of July 31.8 The complaint is on the docket but not free in the public archive, and no allegation from it is described here.

¶Colorado, against the state rather than the manufacturer. Colorado’s Motor Vehicle Dealer Board granted Scout a dealer licence, and Volkswagen, Audi and Porsche dealers sued in Denver District Court to challenge that grant, arguing the state misapplied an electric-vehicle-only exemption. Trade-reported and not docket-verified here; what the reporting says, including its filing date, is in the endnote and no posture is stated as fact.9

¶Florida. Volkswagen and Audi dealers are reported to have sued Scout in state court in Miami-Dade County in February 2025, on the theory that Volkswagen’s ownership stake makes the two a common entity under Florida law. Trade-reported; not docket-verified.9

¶A correction to a claim in circulation. It is sometimes said that the National Automobile Dealers Association sued Volkswagen and Scout in February 2025, ahead of the state associations. This publication found no such case. What the record supports is that Florida dealers sued in that period and that NADA wrote to Volkswagen Group’s chief executive in March 2025 urging a reversal of Scout’s retail strategy. A letter is not a lawsuit.9

¶And one case that is not about Scout. The San Diego order finds further support in what it calls “seemingly the only California state court decision interpreting § 11713.3(o)”: California New Car Dealers Association v. American Honda Motor Co., No. 25SMCV04336 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles County, Mar. 9, 2026), where the judge tentatively read “affiliate” as “intentionally broad and sweeping” and “control” as “a practical definition rather than a formalistic one” — expressly “[a]t present, and for pleading purposes.”5 A tentative reading at the pleading stage is worth what it says it is worth. What it does establish is that this is not a one-manufacturer question.

§6 The widening carve-out, from the enrolled text

¶Washington Engrossed Substitute Senate Bill 6354, sponsored by Senators Liias and King, passed the House 84–9 on March 11, 2026 and the Senate on final passage 47–2 on March 12, 2026. It was delivered to the governor on March 13, signed on March 24, 2026, became Chapter 186, 2026 Laws, and took effect June 11, 2026.10

¶It amends RCW 46.96.185 to permit direct sales by a manufacturer that meets, in the enrolled words, every one of four conditions: it “is incorporated in the United States,” “has never entered into a franchise agreement with a motor vehicle dealer,” “has operated at least one service facility in this state as of January 1, 2026,” and “exclusively produces battery electric vehicles of which at least 300 were registered in Washington state before January 1, 2026.”11

¶Read the second condition again. It is not “does not currently use franchised dealers.” It is never. A manufacturer that has ever signed a franchise agreement with a dealer is permanently outside the exemption, and no reorganisation can undo a past signature. A further clause closes the other door: the exemption is lost if the manufacturer, after the section’s effective date, distributes vehicles for a manufacturer that is itself barred from acting as a dealer, or comes under its majority ownership or control. And regardless of ownership interest, such a barred manufacturer “shall not use its ownership interest in a manufacturer exempted under this subsection … to violate any provisions” of the competition rules.11

¶The statute names no company. Press coverage identifies Rivian and Lucid as satisfying the criteria alongside Tesla; that is reporting, not legislative text.12 What the enrolled text establishes is the shape: cumulative conditions plus anti-circumvention clauses, drawn so that a manufacturer with an existing franchised network cannot qualify through a new subsidiary.

§7 The pattern worth naming

¶Legislatures are not repealing the franchise requirement. They are writing narrow, company-shaped exemptions to it — the instrument that produced the Tesla carve-outs a decade ago, now drafted by incumbents to admit one set of new entrants and exclude another. Washington’s bill says so: in amending the legislature’s findings, ESSB 6354 added that where the legislature authorises a manufacturer to own or operate a dealership, “the legislature intends that such authorization be applied narrowly to prevent erosion of the motor vehicle dealer franchise system and the benefits it provides to communities around the state.”11 An exemption that declares itself to be read narrowly is aimed at a category, not a principle about distribution.

§8 The constitutional attack, and how it actually ended

¶The most structurally dangerous theory against state dealer law was not about direct sales. It was about who decides. Louisiana’s Motor Vehicle Commission has 18 members, 15 of whom exercise the relevant power and each of whom must be a licensee of the Commission; as the Fifth Circuit recorded, “[n]ine of those 15 are associated with competitor dealerships and defendants in this case,” all of them members of the defendant dealers’ association.13

¶On August 26, 2024 the court reversed the dismissal of Tesla’s due process claim, holding that the governing cases “do not require a showing of actual bias” and stand for a “much broader proposition”: “[t]hose with substantial pecuniary interest in legal proceedings should not adjudicate disputes” over the revocation of a competitor’s licence to practise in the industry — “even if that authority is otherwise lawfully exercised.” It vacated the dismissal of the antitrust claims because the due process ruling changed the ground they stood on, affirmed the dismissal of the equal protection claim, and remanded “plac[ing] no limitation on the proceedings that the district court may undertake on remand.”13

¶That is where most accounts stop, and it is why the claim is often called live. It is not. The commissioners petitioned for certiorari (No. 24-925); the district court docketed the Supreme Court’s letter denying the writ on July 1, 2025. Three weeks later, on July 21, 2025, that court granted a consent motion and entered judgment dismissing all Tesla’s claims against all defendants with prejudice.14 The revived due process claim was never tried and never decided. What survives is the Fifth Circuit’s published opinion, and nothing further in that case.

§9 The federal layer, which shrank

¶The Federal Trade Commission’s Combating Auto Retail Scams Rule, 16 CFR Part 463, was published January 4, 2024 at 89 FR 590. On January 27, 2025 the Fifth Circuit vacated it in National Automobile Dealers Association v. FTC, 127 F.4th 549, on the procedural ground that the Commission had not issued the advance notice of proposed rulemaking section 18(b) of the FTC Act requires; the merits were never reached.15 On February 12, 2026 the Commission removed the rule from the Code of Federal Regulations at 91 FR 6507.16 As of August 5, 2026 there is no federal auto-retail advertising and add-on rule, and any page written before 2025 that says otherwise is now wrong.

¶Moving the other way, the Department of Justice’s Antitrust Division announced an Anticompetitive Regulations Task Force on March 27, 2025 and opened a comment docket, on which the manufacturers’ and dealers’ trade associations filed opposing submissions about state franchise laws.17 The task force advocates; it does not adjudicate, and it has displaced no state statute.

¶The scale under the argument, from the dealers’ own annual data: 16,990 franchised light-vehicle dealerships in 2025, total sales of $1,301,478 million, an average of $76,603 thousand per dealership, and more than 276 million repair orders.18

§10 Considerations

¶If the dealers’ reading prevails. A manufacturer with franchised dealers could not launch a directly sold sub-brand through a sibling company in any state whose statute carries an affiliate clause, whatever the ownership diagram. The target is not one company but every legacy manufacturer contemplating an electric sub-brand. The California remedy is equitable, so the immediate effect would be an injunction, not damages.

¶If the manufacturers’ reading prevails. “Affiliate” would require an act of direction by the licensed entity, and a structure in which neither sibling controls the other would sit outside the statute. Franchise agreements would stay in force and grow less relevant product line by product line, and dealers’ recourse would shift from the statutes to the contracts — which is what the Virginia case, docketed as a breach-of-contract action, appears to test.

¶What neither outcome settles. The 2009 answer stands untouched: in bankruptcy, state franchise law loses. Nothing here revisits that, and no federal mechanism exists through which a 2009 termination can be reopened — the section 747 arbitration window closed January 25, 2010.19 These are the same statutes, tested at a different edge.

§11 Still open

¶As of August 5, 2026: the two motions for judgment on the pleadings in the Southern District of California are undecided. The July 1 scheduling order set a status conference in that case for August 10, 2026; the docket also carries two minute entries dated August 4, 2026 that set and terminated unspecified deadlines and hearings, and their text was not available to this publication, so whether that date stands is unverified here.6 The three motions to dismiss in the Eastern District of Virginia are opposed and await reply briefs due August 17; they will be decided on the papers. The Western District of Washington case has no responsive pleading. The Colorado and Florida state-court cases are not docket-verified here. South Carolina House Bill 3777, which would let a manufacturer that has never franchised sell directly, has sat in the House Committee on Labor, Commerce and Industry since it was introduced on January 16, 2025; the legislature’s own action history records nothing on it after February 6, 2025.20

¶The fact worth carrying away is negative. In every proceeding named above, whether a manufacturer may sell around its own dealers through an affiliate remains undecided on the merits. One judge has held the question properly pleaded. That is smaller than it is usually reported to be, and it is the whole of the record.

Review cadence. This page is reviewed at least quarterly, and within seven days of any ruling on the motions listed in §11. If the date at the top is more than three months old, treat the postures as stale.

Endnotes

1. In re Old Carco LLC, 406 B.R. 180 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. June 19, 2009), Case No. 09-50002 (AJG), for the preemption holding and the business judgment standard. The count of 789 rejected Chrysler dealer agreements is not in that opinion; it is SIGTARP’s, in SIGTARP-10-008, Factors Affecting the Decisions of General Motors and Chrysler to Reduce Their Dealership Networks (July 19, 2010), at 1 (“Chrysler terminated 789 (25 percent) of its 3,181 dealerships on June 10, 2009”). Opinion (PDF, govinfo)
2. Cal. Veh. Code § 11713.3, opening paragraph (“to do, directly or indirectly through an affiliate, any of the following”) and subdivision (o)(1) (“To compete with their franchisees in the sale, lease, or warranty service of new motor vehicles”), the latter as amended by A.B. 473 (2023–2024 Reg. Sess.), Stats. 2023, ch. 332, effective January 1, 2024. The affiliate phrase is in the opening paragraph, not in (o)(1), and the March 30, 2026 order states at 13 that it “has been consistently used in the statute since 2012.” Footnote 6 of the order, at 14, sets the pre-2024 text of (o) (“To compete with a dealer in the same line-make operating under an agreement or franchise from a manufacturer or distributor in the relevant market area,” effective Jan. 1, 2020 to Dec. 31, 2023) beside the current text, records the defendant’s argument that the earlier version was the broader one, and rejects it: “The Court disagrees. … [T]he current iteration of the statute is ‘broader’ because it removed the ‘line-make’ and ‘relevant market area’ restrictions for competition.” Section 11713.3 (California Legislative Information) · A.B. 473 (California Legislative Information)
3. Wash. Rev. Code § 46.96.185(1)(g), as it appears in the amended text of Engrossed Substitute Senate Bill 6354, § 2. ESSB 6354 (PDF, Washington State Legislature)
4. Cal. Veh. Code § 11713.3(z)(1) (definition of “affiliate”), as set out and applied in the March 30, 2026 order at 11. Section 11713.3 (California Legislative Information)
5. Order Granting in Part and Denying in Part Defendants’ Motions to Dismiss, California New Car Dealers Association v. Volkswagen of America, Inc., No. 3:25-cv-01316-BAS-DEB (S.D. Cal. Mar. 30, 2026), ECF No. 66, 29 pages. Pin cites to the order’s own pagination: parties and the $100.00 Reservation Agreement, at 2; the claims, the relief sought and the removal from San Diego Superior Court, at 3; “indirectly through an affiliate” and the definition of affiliate, at 10–11; the American Honda decision, at 11; “does not require a completed sale,” at 13; “competition in the sale of new motor vehicles,” at 14; the element-by-element summary beginning “as alleged,” at 16; the FAL reliance analysis, at 18; the dismissal of Volkswagen AG for want of personal jurisdiction, at 28–29; the conclusion, at 29. Order (PDF; copy published by the plaintiff association) · Docket (CourtListener)
6. Docket, California New Car Dealers Association v. Volkswagen of America, Inc., No. 3:25-cv-01316 (S.D. Cal.): notice of removal, ECF No. 1, filed May 22, 2025; answers to the first amended complaint, ECF Nos. 67 and 68, April 20, 2026; motions for judgment on the pleadings, ECF Nos. 73 and 75, June 23, 2026; motions to stay discovery, ECF Nos. 74 and 76, denied by ECF No. 84, “Order Denying Defendants’ Motions to Stay Discovery,” signed July 28 and entered July 29, 2026; scheduling order, ECF No. 80, July 1, 2026, setting a status conference for August 10, 2026, a mandatory settlement conference for October 28, 2026, a final pretrial conference for March 29, 2027 and trial for May 25, 2027. No second amended complaint was filed by the April 13, 2026 deadline the order set. Two minute entries dated August 4, 2026 — one an order, one an in-chambers conference, both tagged as setting or terminating deadlines and hearings — appear on the docket without retrievable text; nothing later appears as of August 5, 2026. Docket (CourtListener / RECAP)
7. Docket, Sunrise Imports, LLC v. Volkswagen Group of America, Inc., No. 1:26-cv-00621 (E.D. Va., filed Mar. 3, 2026), Judge Rossie D. Alston, Jr., Magistrate Judge Ivan D. Davis: complaint, ECF No. 1; coordinated briefing order, ECF No. 4, March 24, 2026 (response to the complaint by June 18, opposition by July 18, replies by August 17); motions to dismiss, ECF Nos. 22, 25 and 31, June 18, 2026; minute entry of June 26, 2026, “Motion Hearing deadline terminated — Per RDA’s chambers, motions set for 9/02/2026 will be decided on the papers; no oral argument will be heard”; order of July 13, 2026 requiring a single consolidated opposition; consolidated opposition, ECF No. 47, July 17, 2026, the last entry on the docket as of August 5, 2026. Cause and nature of suit as recorded in the case’s docket header. Docket (CourtListener / RECAP)
8. Docket, Washington State Auto Dealers Association v. Scout Motors Inc, No. 2:26-cv-02260 (W.D. Wash., filed June 29, 2026): complaint, ECF No. 1; summons returned executed, ECF No. 12, July 21, 2026; order reassigning case, ECF No. 15, July 28, 2026; stipulated motion, ECF No. 17, July 31, 2026, the last entry as of August 5, 2026. Docket (CourtListener / RECAP)
9. Trade and wire reporting, used only where no primary record was obtained and labelled as such in the sentence it supports: the Colorado dealer-licence challenge, filed January 20, 2026 in Denver District Court against the state rather than against Scout; the Florida state-court case, filed in the Eleventh Judicial Circuit, Miami-Dade County, in the first week of February 2025; and the National Automobile Dealers Association’s letter of March 6, 2025 from its chief executive to Volkswagen Group’s chief executive. Automotive News, on the Colorado suit · Automotive News, on the Florida suit · TechCrunch, naming the Florida court · CBT News, on the NADA letter
10. Bill history, Senate Bill 6354, 69th Washington Legislature, 2026 Regular Session: House third reading, 84 yeas and 9 nays, March 11, 2026; Senate final passage, 47 yeas and 2 nays, March 12, 2026; delivered to the governor March 13, 2026; signed March 24, 2026; Chapter 186, 2026 Laws; effective June 11, 2026. Bill summary (Washington State Legislature)
11. Engrossed Substitute Senate Bill 6354, § 1 (legislative findings, including the “applied narrowly” sentence) and § 2, amending RCW 46.96.185(1)(g)(vii) (the four eligibility conditions, the distribution and control clauses, and the sentence on use of an ownership interest). ESSB 6354 (PDF, Washington State Legislature)
12. Press coverage identifying the manufacturers that meet the criteria. The statute names no company; this attribution is reporting. Washington State Standard
13. Tesla, Inc. v. Louisiana Automobile Dealers Association, 113 F.4th 511 (5th Cir. 2024), No. 23-30480, decided August 26, 2024 (Smith, Haynes and Douglas, Circuit Judges; Douglas, J., dissenting in part and concurring in part). Commission composition, at 6; “do not require a showing of actual bias” and the pecuniary-interest proposition, quoted from Gibson v. Berryhill, 411 U.S. 564, 579 (1973), at 16–17; the antitrust vacatur, “[g]iven that our ruling substantially alters the grounds on which Tesla pleads antitrust injury,” at 22; disposition and “[w]e place no limitation on the proceedings,” at 26. Opinion (PDF, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit)
14. Docket, Tesla Inc. v. Louisiana Automobile Dealers Association, No. 2:22-cv-02982 (E.D. La.): letter from the Supreme Court of the United States denying the writ of certiorari, ECF No. 312, docketed July 1, 2025 (petition Lala v. Tesla, Inc., No. 24-925); consent motion for judgment of dismissal, ECF No. 313, granted by order at ECF No. 315; judgment dismissing all claims against all defendants with prejudice, ECF No. 316, July 21, 2025. Docket (CourtListener / RECAP)
15. National Automobile Dealers Association v. Federal Trade Commission, 127 F.4th 549 (5th Cir. 2025), No. 24-60013, decided January 27, 2025, vacating the CARS Rule on the petition of NADA and the Texas Automobile Dealers Association. Opinion (PDF, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit)
16. Federal Trade Commission, “Revision of the Negative Option Rule, Withdrawal of the CARS Rule, Removal of the Non-Compete Rule To Conform These Rules to Federal Court Decisions,” 91 FR 6507 (February 12, 2026), removing 16 CFR Part 463. The rule was originally published at 89 FR 590 (January 4, 2024); its effective date was delayed at 89 FR 13267 (February 22, 2024). 91 FR 6507 (PDF, govinfo)
17. U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division, Anticompetitive Regulations Task Force, announced March 27, 2025, with a public comment docket (ATR-2025-0001) that drew opposing submissions from manufacturer and dealer trade associations. Announcement (U.S. Department of Justice) · Automotive News, on the competing comments
18. National Automobile Dealers Association, NADA Data 2025: Annual Financial Profile of America’s Franchised New-Car Dealerships, at 1 (dealership count, unit sales, total sales, repair orders, service and parts sales) and 3 (Total Sales by State, 2025: all dealerships $1,301,478 million, average per dealership $76,603 thousand). NADA Data 2025 (PDF, NADA)
19. Section 747 of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2010, Public Law 111-117, 123 Stat. 3219–3222, signed December 16, 2009. Subsection (d) carries the election period — “[s]uch election must occur within 40 days of the date of enactment” — which ended January 25, 2010. Subsection (c) is the separate 30-day duty to give each covered dealership “the specific criteria pursuant to which such dealer was terminated.” Public Law 111-117 (govinfo)
20. South Carolina House Bill 3777, “South Carolina Consumer Freedom Act,” 126th General Assembly (2025–2026), introduced and referred to the Committee on Labor, Commerce and Industry on January 16, 2025; last recorded action February 6, 2025. The legislature’s own bill history is the source for the status; the trade account of what the bill would do for a manufacturer building in the state is cited separately. H. 3777 bill history (South Carolina Legislature) · Automotive News, on the bill

This page is journalism and reference, not legal advice. It does not evaluate any reader’s own situation, and nothing here describes the outcome of any pending case. Errors can be reported to [email protected] and are logged at /corrections/.