[Al__Dante]

I think this might be the relevant change (contained in bill S-1 which was substituted in the Regulatory Reform Committee):

"2 (i) Sell any new motor vehicle directly to a retail customer 3 other than through <del>its</del> franchised dealers, unless the retail 4 customer is a nonprofit organization or a federal, state, or local 5 government or agency. This subdivision does not prohibit a 6 manufacturer from providing information to a consumer for the 7 purpose of marketing or facilitating the sale of new motor vehicles 8 or from establishing a program to sell or offer to sell new motor 9 vehicles through the <del>manufacturer's</del> FRANCHISED new motor vehicle 10 dealers THAT SELL AND SERVICE NEW MOTOR VEHICLES PRODUCED BY THE 11 MANUFACTURER."

Link to the passage of the bill: http://www.legislature.mi.gov/(S(zkgdwb45ddzp3imtvsszat55))/...

Link to the substitute bill: http://www.legislature.mi.gov/(S(zkgdwb45ddzp3imtvsszat55))/...

[spacefight]

Setup 100% Tesla-owned franchise. Sell through that.

[howeyc]

I'm not sure you can do this. Isn't the point of the franchise that it's owned by someone else?

For example, if McDonald's corporate opens a location owned by them, can they called it a "franchise" location?

[twosheep]

I think you can have it owned by a different company but with the same leadership as the parent. Isn't this how liability shields work? Lots of different LLCs with the same people at the helm?

[cowsandmilk]

It is easy enough to define franchise as having different control than the parent. This is fairly standard. In fact, the bill has some language about franchises not being acquired, owned, or controlled by a manufacturer or any entity in which the manufacturer has a 45% ownership interest.

[lost_name]

Honestly, if the loophole was that simple I would think they would have started with this.