Compare cars side by side to save time clicking backwards and forwards between them.
Maximum number of cars added to compare list.
We need your postcode in order to provide accurate search results.
John Kerr’s op-ed critical of state automobile franchise laws misses a core reason of why franchise laws exist. They level the playing field between dealers and manufacturers because dealers are prohibited by antitrust laws from negotiating freely with auto makers (“Tesla Breaks the Auto Dealer Cartel,” Sept. 17).
In a truly free market, local new car and truck dealers, who have invested more than $200 billion in their land and facilities, would be able to collectively negotiate their contracts with manufacturers on pricing and distribution. However, dealers are prohibited from federal and state antitrust laws from doing this. In fact, dealer groups are under constant scrutiny of their compliance with state and federal antitrust laws—including major investigations by the U.S. Department of Justice in recent decades.
The automotive market is highly regulated at all levels—requiring licensing, insurance, financing, care of hazardous materials, all regulated by different bureaucracies. State legislatures passed franchise laws to remedy the antitrust harm against dealers and to help protect consumers. These laws also have the benefit of adding intra-brand price competition into the marketplace, adding extra consumer accountability on warranty and recall issues, and keeping local ownership of businesses on Main Street. And the franchise model is extraordinarily efficient at bringing cars to market with gross margins of less than 6%. It is an extremely competitive system that benefits consumers, manufacturers and local communities alike.
Source: The Wall Street Journal