A Louisiana Federal court recently dismissed a complaint brought by Tesla against the Louisiana Automobile Dealers Association (LADA) and other associated dealerships and commissioners for various competition and constitutional claims stemming from Louisiana’s ban on direct sales of automobiles. Tesla, Inc. v. Louisiana Automobile Dealers Assoc., 2023 WL 4053438 (E.D. La. June 16, 2023). Because Tesla’s business model engages with end customers directly rather than selling through franchise dealers, Tesla alleged that the Louisiana ban on direct sales was intended to exclude Tesla from the motor vehicle market. Tesla’s lawsuit targeted LADA for antitrust and constitutional violations, alleging that LADA’s lobbying efforts with the Louisiana Motor Vehicle Commission were part of an anticompetitive and commercially discriminatory scheme intended to exclude Tesla from competing in Louisiana and in deprivation of its constitutional rights.
In a lengthy opinion resolving seven different motions to dismiss, the Court dismissed Tesla’s Complaint with prejudice. The Court reasoned that Tesla’s antitrust claims were barred by the Noerr-Pennington doctrine, because defendants’ association activities constitute “at most, ‘conduct of private individuals … seeking anticompetitive action from the government’ that the Sherman Act ‘does not regulate.’” The Court also held that membership in an association is not enough to establish participation in a conspiracy and that Tesla had otherwise alleged insufficient facts to plausibly allege such a conspiracy between the defendants. As to the constitutional claims, the Court concluded that Tesla has no “constitutional right to be regulated by” a Commission that is “‘sympathetic’ to its business model.” Nor were Tesla’s rights violated under the Equal Protection Clause, the court concluded, because the applicable ban on direct car sales was rooted in a rational basis. Similarly, Tesla’s Commerce Clause claim failed because it failed to plausibly allege that the ban on direct sales had a discriminatory effect.
- Partner
Richard Landon is a trial and appellate attorney with extensive experience in both state and federal courts. Richard has represented clients with a wide array of complex legal issues, including antitrust ...
- Associate
David Archer is a commercial litigator helping large companies resolve complex business and regulatory disputes in state and federal courts. His practice has an emphasis on franchise disputes and he has served clients in the ...
The information contained in this post is provided to alert you to legal developments and should not be considered legal advice. It is not intended to and does not create an attorney-client relationship. Specific questions about how this information affects your particular situation should be addressed to one of the individuals listed. No representations or warranties are made with respect to this information, including, without limitation, as to its completeness, timeliness, or accuracy, and Lathrop GPM shall not be liable for any decision made in connection with the information. The choice of a lawyer is an important decision and should not be based solely on advertisements.
About this Publication
The Franchise Memorandum is a collection of postings on summaries of recent legal developments of interest to franchisors brought to you by Lathrop GPM LLP.
To subscribe to monthly emails for The Franchise Memorandum, please click here.