Skip to main content

Insider Dealing: Car Dealer Protectionism Run Amuck


Imagine you wanted to open a restaurant. Imagine you were allowed to cook the food yourself, but you were prohibited by law from serving it to customers yourself; instead, you were forced to hire a waiter. Next, imagine that the waiter wasn’t pulling his weight, but you weren’t allowed to fire him unless you could prove you had good cause, and the people you had to prove it to were the waiters friends, who also happened to be employed as waiters. Finally, imagine that you had to get permission from the waiter before you could hire another waiter. If he refused, you could appeal his decision… to that same group of his waiter friends. Each of these imaginary scenarios is a close analogy to the very real laws that hinder the distribution of new cars. 

Car manufacturers are not allowed to sell directly to consumers. They can make the vehicle, but then must hire dealers (a.k.a. waiters) to interact with consumers. These state-mandated middlemen will surely want a cut of each sale, making the price consumers pay higher than it might otherwise be. 

Car dealers have powerful protections to keep themselves inserted firmly between makers and consumers. Once a dealer selects a franchisee to represent a particular area, the manufacturer must show good cause to revoke the franchise, even if the contract term has expired. It also includes the dealer’s heirs and whomever he wants to sell to. The manufacturer must have a good reason to remove a franchisee or to reject his chosen successor. And the people who second-guess the manufacturer’s decision are a commission of other car dealers in Oklahoma, who are protected by those same laws, and have a financial interest in making sure they are broadly enforced. 

Dealers also enjoy exclusive territories. If a manufacturer wants to put a new dealership within 15 miles of an existing dealer of the same line-make, they must give notice to the existing dealer, who has the opportunity to object. When the dealer objects, the manufacturer can appeal. The appeal goes before the same commission composed of car dealers - still with a vested interest in making sure there aren’t too many dealers in the state. But here, instead of looking out for a fellow dealer in the hopes that someday he might do the same for them, the commissioners have an interest in keeping the number of dealers small. The scope of this conflict of interest will depend somewhat on where the commissioner/dealer is in relation to the proposed dealer and how closely they compete. For instance, a BMW dealer in Tulsa probably isn’t too worried about a Dodge dealer in Lawton. But there is still enormous potential for a commissioner to have a direct financial interest in keeping a new dealer out of his market. What happened to the idea that you can’t be the judge in your own case? 

One more scenario: Imagine that when you go to buy a building for your restaurant, you are not allowed to hire a real estate agent. Even though you are a professional chef whose skills are in the culinary arts, not the art of the deal, you are legally prohibited from hiring a professional with expertise in buying real estate. Your only options are to negotiate yourself or bring in a friend willing to help you out for free. 

This too is akin to what happens with car dealers. But this time it’s not the manufacturer on the other side of the table; it’s the buyer. It is illegal to accept payment to arrange a transaction involving a new car on behalf of someone else. And it’s not some slap on the wrist: the first offense is a misdemeanor that carries up to a $1000 fine and one year in jail, but if you’re convicted again, it’s a felony - for nothing more than helping someone arrange to buy a car. 

There may not be a clearer example of naked protectionism in the laws of Oklahoma than the protection afforded to car dealers.  But what is the legislature so afraid of? If their dealers are really so valuable, won’t people keep buying from them? And if people don’t want to buy from a dealer, why should the State of Oklahoma make them?

Mike Davis is Research Fellow at 1889 Institute. He can be reached at mdavis@1889institute.org.


Popular posts from this blog

A Reminder of the Ineffectiveness of Covid-19 Lockdowns

Since the beginning of this pandemic, the 1889 Institute has argued against lockdowns even as “experts” advocated for them. Now, months after the weeks-long lockdowns were supposed to end, there are still states in various levels of lockdown. State and local governments have devastated their economies with shutdowns in the name of public health. Yet some politicians, including presidential candidate Joe Biden, have stated a willingness to lockdown the economy again on a national scale to eliminate COVID-19, in a "virus first, economy later" approach. Even as some lawmakers in Oklahoma urge governor Stitt to take more extreme action, it is essential to remember that lockdowns are not very effective. A group of epidemiologists have released a declaration denoting the harmful effects of lockdowns. These include; lower childhood vaccination rates, worsening cardiovascular disease outcomes, fewer cancer screenings, and deteriorating mental health. These consequences are more ...
Read more

If Licensing Protects Consumers, Why Are Licensing Laws Blatantly Anti-Consumer?

Once upon a time, there was a small island whose economy revolved around scuba-diving tourism. Unfortunately, the island elected legislators who considered scuba dangerous. Inexperienced divers would surface too quickly and get the bends. The legislature, wanting to make diving feel safer, passed a law that banned sharks in designated scuba diving zones. There were no known cases of sharks attacking divers, nor were divers being frightened into surfacing too quickly by sharks. This is what most occupational licensing schemes look like. Legislators act, giving the public a sense of security, and giving powerful industries protection from competition. The laws do almost nothing to help consumers. Not only are they futile, they are also deceptive.   Some licensing regimes, like the Oklahoma Real Estate Broker ’ s Act, take the deceit one step farther. Instead of just telling the sharks not to eat people (which they weren’t doing anyway) the act does the equivalent of gathering a group...
Read more

Oklahoma Mayors Acted Unlawfully With COVID-19 Orders

In response to COVID-19, the mayors of Oklahoma’s three largest cities subjected their citizens to draconian shelter in place orders, restricting their freedom, damaging them financially, and undermining their constitutional rights. The mayoral decrees were more restrictive than those of the Governor, and in significant ways contradicted his policy. To this day, city-mandated social distancing rules remain in place in Oklahoma City, Tulsa, and Norman that are not required by the state’s reopening plan. The mayors claim that where their rules are more restrictive than the state’s, the city rules apply. Was any of this unilateral mayoral activity legally valid? For the reasons examined in my paper published today, An Argument Oklahoma’s Mayors Acted Unlawfully During COVID-19 , the short answer is no. (A summary of the paper can be found here .) A close examination of relevant city ordinances and state laws governing the mayors’ COVID-19 decrees forces the conclusion tha...
Read more

Destroying Others’ Property Is Violence, No Matter How It’s Done

With characterizations of protests and riots that have occurred over the last several months as “mostly peaceful” and headlines that include “peaceful demonstration intensified,” and “Fiery But Mostly Peaceful Protests,” it’s clear many in the press do not consider property destruction to be violent. Most likely, they mean most of the protesters haven’t physically harmed anyone. Still, during the very same protests, a large proportion of the “peaceful” participants , in obvious acts of aggression and hostility, have vandalized and stolen property. In fact, property destruction and theft are acts of violence, and are therefore legitimately defended against, not because these acts feel threatening, but because they are, in and of themselves, violent.   Nevertheless, it’s common to hear many condemn individuals who use or threaten force in defense of their property. After all, if no one is physically harmed, or even actually threatened, how can damaging inanimate objects possibl...
Read more