AbleGuy
Officious Intermeddler
Oh no! While it perhaps might save the buyer some moollah, it seems that it’s a bad thing to allow the manufacturer of an automobile to sell that automobile directly to the consumer!
Because….allegedly, this different (possible cost savings) direct sales model would ultimately be bad for the consumer.
Or would it?
What do you think?
Would you buy a vehicle directly from a manufacture without having a fully staffed and fully equipped car dealership available to act as a middleman in the deal to “protect you better” ?
Read on:
“Scout Motors’ decision to sell cars directly to customers triggered fierce backlash from franchise dealers, highlighting long-simmering tensions between traditional retail networks and emerging direct-to-consumer business models.
The clash sharpened in Colorado, where the state Motor Vehicle Dealer Board’s decision to grant Scout a dealer license unsettled established dealers, while raising broader questions about the future of auto retailing.” (This is from the below article)
https://autos.yahoo.com/policy-and-environment/articles/us-auto-dealers-drags-scout-171509642.html
Image Credit: Scout.
This has to be one of the most charged debates in the U.S. auto industry this year. Scout Motors’ decision to sell cars directly to customers triggered fierce backlash from franchise dealers, highlighting long-simmering tensions between traditional retail networks and emerging direct-to-consumer business models.
The clash sharpened in Colorado, where the state Motor Vehicle Dealer Board’s decision to grant Scout a dealer license unsettled established dealers, while raising broader questions about the future of auto retailing.
Unlike conventional manufacturers that rely on independent franchise dealers to sell and service vehicles, Scout intends to manage everything from reservations to delivery through its own facilities and online platform. That model promises transparent pricing, streamlined transactions, and a more controlled experience for customers.
Image Credit: Scout Motors.
But dealers see a threat to the industry’s longstanding franchise system, which they argue has underpinned local economies, provided guaranteed service networks, and protected consumers.
On a recent episode of Inside Automotive, industry veteran Mike Maroone, CEO of Mike Maroone Auto and former AutoNation executive, described Colorado’s regulatory approval as a “circumvention of the traditional franchise system” that undermines dealer investments and protections established over decades.
He dismissed Scout’s claims of operating separately from its corporate parent, Volkswagen, using a familiar saying to make his point: “If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it’s a duck.”
Maroone’s critique reflects a fundamental dispute about corporate structure and brand identity. Scout insists that it is a distinct brand with its own business model, but dealers counter that financial backing from Volkswagen and deep operational ties make that distinction superficial. They argue that allowing a manufacturer-backed brand to bypass the dealer network sets a worrying precedent that could unravel protections franchisees rely on.
Image Credit: Scout.
The Colorado decision is especially significant because the state boasts one of the strongest electric vehicle markets in the country, with roughly 27 percent of all vehicle sales being electric. Federal and state incentives have helped fuel demand, though shifts in incentive structures have recently moderated growth. Even in a strong market, dealers feel pressured as new direct sales approaches gain regulatory footholds.
Maroone has proposed that dealers consider a multipronged response that could include litigation, negotiation, and political advocacy. He underscored the value of dealer associations in unifying opposition and leveraging political capital to defend the status quo. In his view, the threat is existential rather than theoretical, with manufacturer-owned direct sales potentially eroding the economic foundations of independent dealers.
The friction goes beyond Colorado. Dealer groups nationwide, including the National Automobile Dealers Association, have pledged to challenge Scout’s direct-to-consumer strategy in courts and statehouses across the country. These challenges echo earlier disputes over Tesla and other electric vehicle makers that have similarly eschewed franchise networks, testing state franchise laws that were drafted long before internet-based sales were possible.
In some states, dealers have already escalated their opposition into litigation. For example, in Florida, Volkswagen and Audi dealers filed a lawsuit claiming Scout’s direct sales violated state law by accepting deposits for vehicles not yet in production. They contended that taking deposits constituted sales under state definitions and sought injunctions to halt the practice. The dispute underscored how legal interpretations of sales activity vary widely across states.
Scout’s supporters argue that the direct model aligns with evolving consumer expectations shaped by online retail and digital services. They contend that eliminating intermediaries can reduce friction and cost while offering buyers a more transparent experience. Scout’s leadership has expressed optimism about consumer demand for its Terra pickup and Traveler SUV, even as dealer pushback grows.
At its core, the conflict encapsulates a broader industry transformation. Traditional dealers emphasize their local economic impact and service capacity. Direct-to-consumer proponents highlight efficiency and modern customer engagement. As Scout and similar brands expand, the legal, economic, and political wrangling will likely continue, shaping how Americans buy vehicles in the decades ahead.
(Apologies for any uncaught autocorrect weirdnesses)
Because….allegedly, this different (possible cost savings) direct sales model would ultimately be bad for the consumer.
Or would it?
What do you think?
Would you buy a vehicle directly from a manufacture without having a fully staffed and fully equipped car dealership available to act as a middleman in the deal to “protect you better” ?
Read on:
“Scout Motors’ decision to sell cars directly to customers triggered fierce backlash from franchise dealers, highlighting long-simmering tensions between traditional retail networks and emerging direct-to-consumer business models.
The clash sharpened in Colorado, where the state Motor Vehicle Dealer Board’s decision to grant Scout a dealer license unsettled established dealers, while raising broader questions about the future of auto retailing.” (This is from the below article)
https://autos.yahoo.com/policy-and-environment/articles/us-auto-dealers-drags-scout-171509642.html
US Auto Dealers Drags Scout Motors to Court Because It Is Selling Cars Directly to Customers
Wed, December 31, 2025 at 10:15 AM MST
Image Credit: Scout.
This has to be one of the most charged debates in the U.S. auto industry this year. Scout Motors’ decision to sell cars directly to customers triggered fierce backlash from franchise dealers, highlighting long-simmering tensions between traditional retail networks and emerging direct-to-consumer business models.
The clash sharpened in Colorado, where the state Motor Vehicle Dealer Board’s decision to grant Scout a dealer license unsettled established dealers, while raising broader questions about the future of auto retailing.
A New Sales Model Meets Old-Guard Resistance
Scout Motors is a Volkswagen Group-backed EV brand. The company deliberately pursued a sales approach more commonly associated with Tesla, Rivian, and Lucid.Unlike conventional manufacturers that rely on independent franchise dealers to sell and service vehicles, Scout intends to manage everything from reservations to delivery through its own facilities and online platform. That model promises transparent pricing, streamlined transactions, and a more controlled experience for customers.
Image Credit: Scout Motors.
But dealers see a threat to the industry’s longstanding franchise system, which they argue has underpinned local economies, provided guaranteed service networks, and protected consumers.
On a recent episode of Inside Automotive, industry veteran Mike Maroone, CEO of Mike Maroone Auto and former AutoNation executive, described Colorado’s regulatory approval as a “circumvention of the traditional franchise system” that undermines dealer investments and protections established over decades.
He dismissed Scout’s claims of operating separately from its corporate parent, Volkswagen, using a familiar saying to make his point: “If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it’s a duck.”
Maroone’s critique reflects a fundamental dispute about corporate structure and brand identity. Scout insists that it is a distinct brand with its own business model, but dealers counter that financial backing from Volkswagen and deep operational ties make that distinction superficial. They argue that allowing a manufacturer-backed brand to bypass the dealer network sets a worrying precedent that could unravel protections franchisees rely on.
An Existential Battle for the Franchise System
Image Credit: Scout.
The Colorado decision is especially significant because the state boasts one of the strongest electric vehicle markets in the country, with roughly 27 percent of all vehicle sales being electric. Federal and state incentives have helped fuel demand, though shifts in incentive structures have recently moderated growth. Even in a strong market, dealers feel pressured as new direct sales approaches gain regulatory footholds.
Maroone has proposed that dealers consider a multipronged response that could include litigation, negotiation, and political advocacy. He underscored the value of dealer associations in unifying opposition and leveraging political capital to defend the status quo. In his view, the threat is existential rather than theoretical, with manufacturer-owned direct sales potentially eroding the economic foundations of independent dealers.
The friction goes beyond Colorado. Dealer groups nationwide, including the National Automobile Dealers Association, have pledged to challenge Scout’s direct-to-consumer strategy in courts and statehouses across the country. These challenges echo earlier disputes over Tesla and other electric vehicle makers that have similarly eschewed franchise networks, testing state franchise laws that were drafted long before internet-based sales were possible.
In some states, dealers have already escalated their opposition into litigation. For example, in Florida, Volkswagen and Audi dealers filed a lawsuit claiming Scout’s direct sales violated state law by accepting deposits for vehicles not yet in production. They contended that taking deposits constituted sales under state definitions and sought injunctions to halt the practice. The dispute underscored how legal interpretations of sales activity vary widely across states.
A Battle Over the Future of Car Buying
Scout’s supporters argue that the direct model aligns with evolving consumer expectations shaped by online retail and digital services. They contend that eliminating intermediaries can reduce friction and cost while offering buyers a more transparent experience. Scout’s leadership has expressed optimism about consumer demand for its Terra pickup and Traveler SUV, even as dealer pushback grows.
At its core, the conflict encapsulates a broader industry transformation. Traditional dealers emphasize their local economic impact and service capacity. Direct-to-consumer proponents highlight efficiency and modern customer engagement. As Scout and similar brands expand, the legal, economic, and political wrangling will likely continue, shaping how Americans buy vehicles in the decades ahead.
(Apologies for any uncaught autocorrect weirdnesses)
Last edited:
