Pub. 58 2017-2018 Issue 3

22 Think you are comparing Apples to Apples? Don’t be fooled by the marketing spin of smoke & mirrors telling you to cut out the middle-man (then who are they and how do they get paid?) , that you own your own warranty company and get 100% of the profits (and what does that mean?) , or no one else has or can do what they have and do! And what about true meaningful service and support? 19 years of putting YOUR dealership’s profits FIRST! WWW.FIRSTINNOVATIONS.COM WWW.FIRSTINSUREDGROUP.COM Find Out What Hundreds of Dealerships Across The Country Already Know The First Group Family of Companies Better Products • Better Prices • Better Service  TEXAS FRANCHISE LAWS — CONTINUED FROM PAGE 21  TEXAS FRANCHISE LAWS — CONTINUED ON PAGE 24 First Amendment, the Due Process Clause, and the Commerce Clause. In the Court’s Order granting Summary Judgment to the Texas Department of Transportation, 37 the Court stated that: Based on legislative findings, the Tex- as Legislature has enacted a statutory scheme that attempts to equalize the market power between manufacturers and dealers, and further the public interest of the citizens of Texas, by prohibiting manufacturers from acting in the capacity of a dealer. 38 The District Court rejected Ford’s argument that a regulated activity “becomes sacrosanct when accom- plished through the internet.” The Court stated that if it accepted Ford’s interpretation of American Libraries Association v. Pataki, 969 F. Supp. 160 (S.D.N.Y. 1997), all regulatory schemes fall “before the mighty altar of the internet.” (Footnote excluded). The Court concluded that: Ford’s entire argument is an attempt to avoid the Texas Motor Vehicle Commission Code. It is a legitimate exercise of the state's police power for Texas to regulate who is qualified to sell motor vehicles in Texas and under what conditions. It appears that under the Code, Ford would not be permitted to offer these vehicles for sale, albeit ostensibly through a dealer, by posting fliers on the Drag or calling random indi- viduals listed in the phone book. The fact that the plaintiff is attempting to use the internet to disseminate this information is not constitution- ally significant under these circum- stances. If the Court were to accept the plaintiffs arguments about the interplay between the internet and the Commerce Clause, all states’ regulatory schemes would be nul- lified. This is an absurdity that the Court declines to accept. The Court emphasizes that Ford is mounting a challenge to a regulatory scheme of general applicability, not one that attempts to regulate directly and primarily transactions that take place on the internet. The Court declines to determine whether Ford’s conduct violates the Code as this determination is best made by the administrative law judge. 39 (Emphasis added.) The state’s police power, incorporated in the agency’s policy and purpose since its adoption in 1971 40 to the present, and the state’s statutory procedure, is recognized by the Court in its granting of the State’s summary judgment. Ford went forward to appeal the District Court’s ruling to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. The Court of Appeals affirmed the District Court’s grant of summary judgment to the State. 41