A Craig Bushon Show Investigative Commentary
For much of the last century, the American automobile marketplace has operated under a regulatory framework designed for a very different time. State franchise laws, originally enacted to stabilize a young and volatile industry, were built to address concerns that no longer define today’s market.
Those laws were not created with bad intent. They were meant to protect local businesses, encourage competition, and ensure consumers had access to service and representation close to home. For decades, that framework largely worked.
The question facing the industry now is not whether those protections were justified in the past, but whether they still align with how consumers buy, research, and expect transparency today.
Colorado’s recent decision allowing Scout Motors to sell vehicles directly to consumers did not eliminate franchise law, nor did it invalidate the dealer model. What it did was acknowledge something more modest but meaningful: certain modern business models do not fit neatly into statutes written for an earlier era.
This is not an argument against dealerships. Dealers remain essential to local markets, service infrastructure, and customer relationships. Nor is this a call for dismantling the franchise system. It is a recognition that a one size fits all mandate may no longer reflect the diversity of today’s automotive landscape.
Franchise laws were designed to prevent imbalances of power. Over time, however, markets evolved. Consumers gained access to information. Pricing transparency improved. Digital retail reshaped expectations across nearly every major industry, including automotive. In many cases, the law did not evolve at the same pace.
That disconnect is becoming harder to ignore.
Colorado’s ruling matters because it reflects a growing willingness by regulators to interpret existing law in light of current market conditions rather than historical assumptions. The state did not repeal protections. It applied them narrowly, based on whether a franchised dealer network actually existed for a given brand.
That distinction is important. It signals that the discussion is no longer about eliminating the dealer model, but about whether the law should mandate it in every circumstance, regardless of consumer impact.
Franchise law is largely state based, not federal. As a result, change does not occur all at once. It unfolds gradually through administrative interpretation, limited carve outs, and judicial review. Each decision stands on its own, but together they begin to reshape how the law functions in practice.
This pattern is not new.
Tesla did not overturn franchise laws nationwide, nor did it attempt to. Instead, its presence prompted states to examine whether their existing frameworks continued to serve the public interest in every situation. Some states adjusted. Others did not. The system adapted unevenly, but it adapted.
What makes the current moment different is that this discussion is no longer confined to startups or edge cases. Established manufacturers are now exploring whether alternative sales models can coexist alongside traditional dealerships without harming consumers or limiting access to service.
That matters because franchise protection laws have historically rested on a single core justification: preventing consumer harm. As more data emerges showing that direct to consumer models can operate transparently, maintain service networks, and avoid price volatility, that justification becomes more difficult to defend as an absolute requirement.
As exceptions multiply, legal frameworks face pressure not because they are unlawful, but because they become increasingly inconsistent. Laws that treat similar businesses differently based on legacy structures rather than consumer outcomes are naturally scrutinized more closely over time.
This does not suggest courts or legislatures are poised to eliminate franchise protections wholesale. It does suggest the conversation is shifting from preservation to reassessment, from permanence to optionality.
Optionality changes the nature of the debate.
When consumers see that multiple sales models can coexist without disruption, fear based arguments lose effectiveness. Policymakers gain room to modernize without dismantling. Dealers who add value continue to thrive. Manufacturers gain flexibility. Consumers gain choice.
That is not disruption for its own sake. It is adaptation.
The automotive industry has always evolved through technology, regulation, and market demand. Franchise law should not be exempt from thoughtful review simply because it has existed for decades.
Colorado did not end a system. It asked whether the system still fits every circumstance.
That question will not disappear. And as markets continue to evolve, it remains a question worth asking carefully, responsibly, and without assigning blame.
We don’t just follow the headlines.
We read between the lines to get to the bottom line of what’s really going on.
Editorial and Disclosure Notice:
This commentary was prepared by The Craig Bushon Show media team and reflects independent editorial opinion and analysis. The views expressed are solely those of the author and do not represent the views, policies, or positions of any employer, automotive manufacturer, dealer group, or affiliated organization. No nonpublic or proprietary information was used in the preparation of this commentary. This content is intended for public discussion and journalistic commentary only and does not constitute legal or regulatory advice.
