Scout Motors urges DOJ to fight state dealer franchise laws
Scout called on the federal government to do this in an 11-page letter submitted to the Justice Department's Anticompetitive Regulations Task Force by Blair Anderson, the automaker's vice president of government and regulatory affairs.
The task force was created in March after president Donald Trump signed executive orders in January and February calling for removing "regulatory burdens placed on the American people." The letter used similar language, calling franchise laws "burdensome restrictions on competition."
Car sales in the United States are currently regulated by a patchwork of state laws, some of which allow automakers to sell cars directly to customers. But many states still require franchised dealerships. There's been friction between those dealerships and automakers since Tesla unveiled its direct-sales model over a decade ago.
Tesla fought a series of legal battles with franchised dealerships in individual states. Now Scout, which plans to build its Traveler SUV and Terra pickup truck in a new South Carolina factory starting in 2027, is facing similar struggles.
A group of Volkswagen and Audi dealerships in Florida filed a lawsuit in February to block Scout's direct-sales plans, and the California New Car Dealers Association (CNCDA) filed a similar lawsuit in April, Automotive News noted. In March, the National Automobile Dealers Association (NADA) also sent a letter to Volkswagen Group CEO Oliver Blume and other executives urging the company to let its members sell Scout vehicles.
Scout revives the International Harvester Scout, one of the original SUVs, which the VW Group gained the rights to after its purchase of International's successor Navistar. The new Scout vehicles are rugged off-roaders, with body-on-frame construction, with all-electric or extended-range powertrains.
They're also unlike anything in the current VW Group portfolio, and exactly the kinds of vehicles dealerships in truck-loving America are eager to sell. That's likely adding fuel to the fire over the VW Group's attempt to set up a new brand with direct sales, while keeping franchised dealerships for its other brands.
In the letter, Anderson said that, as a new manufacturer, Scout shouldn't be forced to adopt the franchised dealership model "especially when the new manufacturer has not asked any dealerships to place any investment in distributing its vehicles, developed a more efficient alternative, and will not sell any vehicles also offered for sale by a franchised dealer."
Dealerships don't seem to buy the logic that Scout's clean slate entitles it to a different sales model than its fellow VW Group brands. The question is whether the federal government will and whether, if it does, it actually has the authority to strike down state franchise laws.
Copyright 2025 The Arena Group, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Buzz Feed
a minute ago
- Buzz Feed
Trump's Math Fail Sparks Massive Online Trolling
President Donald Trump is getting heat on social media for making a claim on Tuesday about cutting drug prices that's essentially mathematically impossible. Trump began promisingly enough with a complaint shared by Democrats and Republicans alike: the high cost of medication, and how much more Americans pay for some medications than patients in other countries. He promised to reduce those costs ― but to a very unlikely degree. 'We're gonna get the drug prices down. Not 30% or 40%, which would be great. Not 50% or 60%. No, we're gonna get them down 1,000%, 600%, 500%, 1,500%,' Trump said at a Republican dinner. 'Numbers that are not even thought to be achievable.' Critics quickly pointed out the reason those numbers are not thought to be achievable: reducing the price by 100% would make the drugs free. Reducing it by '1,000%, 600%, 500%, 1,500%,' as Trump said, would make the cost negative dollars ― with the drug company essentially paying people to take the medication. Trump: This is somebody nobody else can do. I can get the drug prices down… 1000% 600% 500% 1500%. Numbers that are not even thought to be achievable. — Acyn (@Acyn) July 23, 2025 @acyn/ C-SPAN / Via Twitter: @Acyn Several users asked Grok, the AI chatbot on X, if Trump's numbers made sense. Grok called Trump's claim ' mathematically impossible,' ' hyperbolic and not literal ' and ' total bullshit.' But Trump insisted he could use 'a certain talent that I have' to convince pharmaceutical companies that they have no choice but to reduce their prices. Trump also mentioned an executive order he signed in May to invoke 'most-favored nation' status in drug costs, which he says would ensure that drug companies can't charge Americans any more than what they charge patients in other nations. However, the details of that plan remain hazy, and at least one pharmaceutical CEO said discussions with the White House are ongoing and expected to take time. Trump on Tuesday insisted that his order will lead to those price cuts. 'We will have reduced drug prices by 1,000%, by 1,100, 1,200, 1,300, 1,400, 700, 600,' he said. 'Not 30 or 40 or 50%, but numbers the likes of which you've never even dreamed of before.' Trump's critics offered some free math lessons: As someone who graduated from first grade, this is not how numbers work. — Hemant Mehta (@hemantmehta) July 23, 2025 @hemantmehta/ C-SPAN Thank goodness this guy isn't negotiating the percentages we pay in tariffs. — Justin Wolfers (@JustinWolfers) July 23, 2025 @justinwolfers / C-SPAN Quite a trick if he can do it. Are we going into negative numbers where big Pharma pays me to take their drugs? — Dj Omega Mvp (@DjOmegaMVP) July 23, 2025 @DJOmegaMVP/ C-SPAN Hard to imagine this guy was found liable of fraud for making up numbers — MeidasTouch (@MeidasTouch) July 23, 2025 @meidastouch/ C-SPAN So the drug companies are going to pay us to take their drugs? Dumbest President EVER. — SickoftheCrap (@SickoftheC) July 23, 2025 @SickoftheC The economics department at Wharton must be incredibly proud of this man's fundamental understanding of basic math. — Franklin Leonard (@franklinleonard) July 23, 2025 @franklinleonard/ C-SPAN Cant wait fill my next zpack at cvs and leave with a stack of their money — Ronnie (@Gem_Mint_Cards_) July 23, 2025 @gem_mint_cards_/ C-SPAN I feel like a requirement of being president should be understanding basic math. — Jared Ryan Sears (@JaredRyanSears) July 23, 2025 @JaredRyanSears So medicines would be free and pharmaceutical companies would pay us? — Bru🔮 💉🗣 (@brwninh4) July 23, 2025 @brwninh4 Getting paid to take drugs sounds awesome where do I sign up — TCL (@TitleTalkTCL) July 23, 2025 @titletalkTCL / C-SPAN Universal Prescription Income. Your move, Yang — Roger Sollenberger (@SollenbergerRC) July 23, 2025 @SollenbergerRC/ C-SPAN What kind of math is this? — Wu Tang is for the Children (@WUTangKids) July 23, 2025 @WuTangKids/ C-SPAN And people wonder how this idiot bankrupted casinos. — Jo (@JoJoFromJerz) July 23, 2025 @JoJoFromJerz/ C-SPAN Negative drug prices are on the way ! 🤣🇺🇸 — Christopher Schultz (@nalyticsatwork) July 23, 2025 @nalyticsatwork/ C-SPAN This is the fucking genius. — Fred Wellman (@FPWellman) July 23, 2025 @FPWellman/ C-SPAN — Dave Itzkoff (@ditzkoff) July 23, 2025 @DaveItzkoff/ C-SPAN @realDonaldTrump is out here pitching drug deals like it's Shark Tank for Cartels: 'I'm offering insulin for negative $300 and a lifetime supply of bleach injections… but only if you call in the next 15 minutes.' This QVC for crackheads. — Frank C (@FrankC164) July 23, 2025 @FrankC164/ C-SPAN
Axios
a minute ago
- Axios
GOP shuts down hearing after Dem motion to subpoena Epstein files
A Republican-led House subcommittee on Wednesday sidestepped a Democrat's motion to subpoena the Justice Department's documents on Jeffrey Epstein. Why it matters: The move, which could delay a vote at least until September, comes as President Trump has been bearing down on his GOP allies in Congress not to side with Democrats on forcing the release of the files. It would have been an unusually tough vote for Republicans on the panel, a majority of whom are members of the right-wing House Freedom Caucus and have long championed transparency around Epstein. Democrats have gleefully taken every opportunity to try to force their GOP colleagues on the record on the issue. What happened: Rep. Summer Lee (D-Pa.), the ranking member of the House Oversight Subcommittee on Federal Law Enforcement, made the motion during her opening remarks in a hearing on the "crisis of unaccompanied alien children."
USA Today
a minute ago
- USA Today
College sports bill moving to House floor in Congress after passing committee votes
Two U.S. House of Representatives committees on Wednesday, July 23 advanced a bill that would establish a variety of national rules concerning how college sports operate, making this the most comprehensive measure connected to the industry set to reach the chamber's floor in decades. After considering nearly a dozen amendments, the Energy and Commerce Committee ultimately voted 30-23 to send the bill to the House floor. It was a straight party line vote in which one vote was not recorded. The Education and Workforce Committee also signed off on the bill later in the afternoon by a margin of 18-17. Barring last-minute intervention from another committee, the bill could receive a vote in September, perhaps within the first two weeks after the House is scheduled to return Sept. 2 from a summer recess that is expected to begin at the close of business July 23. If the bill moves to the Senate, its future will remain uncertain, as 60 votes will be needed to prevent a filibuster. So, even if all 53 Republican members back the measure — which so far has received bipartisan support and opposition in the House — seven Democrats also will have to approve. Dubbed the SCORE Act (Student Compensation And Opportunity Through Rights and Endorsements), the bill includes antitrust-exemption language that specifically would allow the NCAA, and potentially the new College Sports Commission, to make operational rules affecting schools and athletes in areas that have come into legal dispute in recent years. That would include rules about transfers and the number of seasons for which athletes can compete. It also would prevent college athletes from being employees of their schools, conferences or an athletic association. The employment issue is the subject of an ongoing lawsuit in a federal district court in Pennsylvania. In addition, the bill also would codify college athletes' name-image-and-likeness activities, basically following the terms of the recent settlement of three athlete-compensation antitrust cases against the NCAA and the Power Five conferences. And it would require most Division I schools to provide a series of health and educational benefits for athletes that are currently called for under NCAA and some conferences' rules, but do not have the force of federal law. The most well-financed schools would be required to establish no later than July 1, 2027 — and then maintain — at least 16 varsity teams. (Over the past two decades, according to NCAA data, Division I schools have sponsored, on average, 19.) And schools would be required to make public information about student athletic fees and how those funds are used. Schools with media rights revenues of at least $50 million in their most recently completed fiscal year would not be allowed to use student-fee money 'to support intercollegiate athletic programs.' (Schools could get around this by replacing student-fee money with more money from their general funds.) Without further changes in the bill, Senate approval seems unlikely. House Democrats have mostly opposed the bill and longstanding negotiations between Ted Cruz, R-Texas, a college-sports bill proponent who now chairs the Senate Commerce Committee, and Democratic senators, including Cory Booker, N.J., and Richard Blumenthal, Conn., have remain stalled. However, as approved on July 23, the bill included a number of changes from the version that was advanced by a House Energy and Commerce subcommittee by a 12-11, party-line vote on July 15. The changes appeared designed to make the bill more attractive to Democrats. Among those are: ▶ Mandates that would apply to NCAA's — and potentially the College Sports Commission's — governance structures. It includes requirements concerning the involvement of athletes and schools outside the Power Four conferences. It also would require the NCAA, and potentially the CSC, to 'establish a council to serve as the primary deliberative body' that is 'composed of individuals who represent each conference that is a member' of the association. No such group currently exists within the NCAA, which comprises three competitive divisions. And changes to Division I's governance setup that are being discussed by those schools aim to reduce the size of its Board of Directors and a secondary policy-making group. ▶ Requiring future studies on several college sports topics by the schools, the Federal Trade Commission and the U.S. Comptroller General. These would seem to combine to cover ground contemplated by a college sports commission President Donald Trump had been considering. The schools would be required to report within 180 days of enactment and then, every two years, on issues relating to compliance with the SCORE Act and 'recommendations to improve the health, safety and educational opportunities of student athletes.' The FTC would have to study the possibility of establishing an independent entity to address certification and regulation of agents who represent college athletes. The Comptroller General would have to conduct a study within two years of enactment covering the impact of the SCORE Act on schools' Olympic sports programs, 'including the funding of Olympic Sports' and to "develop recommendations for support of Olympic Sports, given the unique nature of Olympic Sports and intercollegiate athletics" in the U.S. It also have to analyze 'trends with respect to roster sizes for Olympic Sports,' especially at Power Four schools. Contributing: Tom Schad
