Pub. 3 2021-2022 Issue 2

15 Our Volvo petition’s outcome was a victory for California dealers, but it increasingly appears that Volvo’s corporate bigwigs could not care less about the DMVorCalifornia law. Less than one year after the issuance of the DMV’s findings that Volvowas illegally competing against its dealers by directly retailing vehicles through CarebyVolvo , with its dealers through the Care by Volvo program. Throughout the process, Volvo repeatedly accused us of overreacting and harming the interests of California Volvo dealers. But after the DMV found that Volvo was violating California law, it publicly committed to indefinitely suspend Care by Volvo in California. Our Volvo petition’s outcome was a victory for California dealers, but it increasingly appears that Volvo’s corporate bigwigs could not care less about the DMV or California law. Less than one year after the issuance of the DMV’s findings that Volvo was illegally competing against its dealers by directly retailing vehicles through Care by Volvo, Volvo issued several major press releases proudly announcing that it intended to sell electric vehicles exclusively online from Volvo’s website. It even mentioned the integration of Care by Volvo into this direct distribution model. When a dealer signs a franchise agreement and invests millions in facilities and personnel, the dealer does so with a justifiable assumption that he or she is partnering with the manufacturer as an independent dealer, not as the manufacturer’s delivery agent. Volvo’s actions undermine this basic assumption and set an extremely dangerous precedent for our industry. In the coming weeks and months, CNCDA will continue to evaluate Volvo’s plans to retail electric vehicles. Admittedly, there is a lot we do not know currently. But CNCDA will continue to vigorously defend California’s franchise laws. 3