Case Title: Mass. State Auto. Dealers Ass’n, Inc. v. Tesla Motors MA, Inc.

Citation: 

Docket Number: SJC-11545

State: massachusetts

Court: Massachusetts Supreme Court

Date: 2014-09-15T00:00:00Z

Document:
NOTICE:  All slip opinions and orders are subject to formal 
revision and are superseded by the advance sheets and bound 
volumes of the Official Reports.  If you find a typographical 
error or other formal error, please notify the Reporter of 
Decisions, Supreme Judicial Court, John Adams Courthouse, 1 
Pemberton Square, Suite 2500, Boston, MA, 02108-1750; (617) 557-
1030; SJCReporter@sjc.state.ma.us 
 
SJC-11545 
 
MASSACHUSETTS STATE AUTOMOBILE DEALERS ASSOCIATION, INC., & 
others1  vs.  TESLA MOTORS MA, INC., & another.2 
 
 
 
Norfolk.     May 6, 2014. - September 15, 2014. 
 
Present:  Spina, Cordy, Botsford, Gants, Duffly, & Lenk, JJ. 
 
 
Motor Vehicle, Dealer.  Consumer Protection Act, Motor vehicle 
franchise, Standing.  Practice, Civil, Standing. 
 
 
 
 
Civil action commenced in the Superior Court Department on 
October 16, 2012. 
 
 
A motion to dismiss was heard by Kenneth J. Fishman, J. 
 
 
The Supreme Judicial Court on its own initiative 
transferred the case from the Appeals Court. 
 
 
 
Thomas S. Vangel (James F. Radke with him) for 
Massachusetts State Automobile Dealers Association, Inc., & 
others. 
 
Richard P. Campbell for the defendants. 
 
John E. Kwoka, Jr., pro se, amicus curiae, submitted a 
brief. 
                                                 
 
1 Connolly Buick, Co., Inc., doing business as Herb Connolly 
Chevrolet; Jake Kaplan's Inc., doing business as Fisker Norwood; 
and James G. Boyle. 
 
 
2 Tesla Motors, Inc. 
 
2 
 
 
 
 
BOTSFORD, J.  In Beard Motors, Inc. v. Toyota Motor 
Distribs., Inc., 395 Mass. 428 (1985) (Beard Motors), this court 
held that a Massachusetts motor vehicle dealer did not have 
standing to maintain an action for an alleged violation of G. L. 
c. 93B, § 12A, against a motor vehicle distributor with which it 
was not affiliated.  In the case before us, the principal 
question is whether amendments to the statute in 2002 broadened 
the scope of standing under c. 93B, such that Massachusetts 
motor vehicle dealers now have standing to maintain an action 
for an alleged violation of the statute against unaffiliated 
motor vehicle manufacturers or distributors.  We hold that the 
2002 amendments did not have this effect.  Chapter 93B is aimed 
primarily at protecting motor vehicle dealers from injury caused 
by the unfair business practices of manufacturers and 
distributors with which they are associated, generally in a 
franchise relationship.  We therefore affirm the judgment of the 
Superior Court dismissing the plaintiffs' action on the basis of 
lack of standing. 
 
Procedural background.  The plaintiff Massachusetts State 
Automobile Dealers Association, Inc. (MSADA), is a Statewide 
organization that represents the interests of new automobile and 
truck franchised dealerships in Massachusetts; two of the other 
plaintiffs, Connolly Buick Co., Inc., doing business as Herb 
3 
 
Connolly Chevrolet, and Jake Kaplan's Inc., doing business as 
Fisker Norwood, are Massachusetts motor vehicle dealers.  The 
plaintiffs commenced this action against Tesla Motors, Inc., an 
automobile manufacturer, and its Massachusetts subsidiary, Tesla 
Motors MA, Inc., alleging that the defendants were operating "an 
automobile dealership showroom in the Natick Mall without a 
license and in violation of law which prohibits a manufacturer 
from owning a dealership."3  The plaintiffs claimed that the 
defendants were in violation of G. L. c. 93B, §§ 3 (a)4 and 
4 (c) (10),5 and were engaged in a civil conspiracy "to evade 
Massachusetts law and to operate an automobile dealership 
without the required licenses."  They sought declaratory relief, 
a temporary restraining order, and preliminary and permanent 
injunctive relief that would, among other things, prevent the 
defendants from owning directly or indirectly any Tesla brand 
dealership in Massachusetts. 
                                                 
 
3 We generally will refer to Tesla Motors, Inc., as "Tesla," 
and Tesla Motors MA, Inc., as "Tesla MA."  Where appropriate, we 
refer to Tesla and Tesla MA collectively as "the defendants." 
 
 
4 General Laws c. 93B, § 3 (a), inserted by St.2002, c. 222, 
§ 3, provides:  "Unfair methods of competition and unfair or 
deceptive acts or practices, as defined in [c. 93B, §] 4, are 
hereby declared to be unlawful." 
 
 
5 General Laws c. 93B, § 4 (c) (10), inserted by St. 2002, 
c. 222, § 3, provides in part that it is deemed a violation of 
c. 93B, § 3 (a), for a manufacturer to own or operate, directly 
or through a subsidiary, a dealership in the Commonwealth "of 
the same line make" as any vehicles that the manufacturer 
manufactures or distributes. 
4 
 
 
The defendants moved to dismiss the complaint both for lack 
of standing and for failure to state a claim on which relief 
could be granted.  See Mass. R. Civ. P. 12 (b) (1) and (6), 365 
Mass. 754 (1974).  They argued, among other things, that the 
plaintiffs lacked standing to claim a violation of G. L. c. 93B 
and conspiracy to violate c. 93B because they were not 
"affiliated dealers" of Tesla or Tesla MA.  After a hearing, a 
judge in the Superior Court denied the plaintiffs' request for a 
temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction, ruling 
that the plaintiffs lacked standing to maintain the action.  He 
subsequently denied the plaintiffs' motion for reconsideration 
and dismissed the complaint for lack of standing.6,7  The 
plaintiffs appeal. 
                                                 
 
6 The defendants also filed a special motion to dismiss 
pursuant to the so-called "anti-SLAPP" statute, G. L. c. 231, 
§ 59H.  The judge denied that motion.  The defendants do not 
press the point on appeal. 
 
 
7 The judge ruled in part that the Massachusetts State 
Automobile Dealers Association (MSADA) did not have standing 
because it is not a manufacturer, distributor, or motor vehicle 
dealer entitled to bring suit under G. L. c. 93B, § 15.  The 
plaintiffs claim on appeal that MSADA has "associational 
standing."  See Modified Motorcycle Ass'n of Mass., Inc. v. 
Commonwealth, 60 Mass. App. Ct. 83, 85 & n.6 (2003), citing Hunt 
v. Washington State Apple Advertising Comm'n, 432 U.S. 333, 343 
(1977).  Given the result we reach and, in any event, because of 
the presence of the two individual dealer plaintiffs, we need 
not attempt to resolve MSADA's associational standing claim. 
5 
 
 
Facts.8  Tesla is a manufacturer of electric motor vehicles.  
It was incorporated in Delaware in 2003.  Tesla Motors MA is its 
wholly-owned subsidiary, incorporated in Massachusetts in 2012 
"to lease and operate stores, galleries and service centers for 
the sale and service of Tesla vehicles in Massachusetts and to 
provide the public with information about electric vehicle 
ownership."  Neither of the defendants is affiliated in any way 
with the plaintiffs.  The defendants are not members of MSADA, 
and neither of the plaintiff individual dealers ever sold or 
distributed Tesla brand vehicles. 
 
At the time the complaint was filed, the defendants were 
not licensed to sell motor vehicles in Massachusetts.  However, 
Tesla MA had filed with the board of selectmen of Natick (board) 
an application for a class 1 license pursuant to G. L. c. 140, 
§§ 58 and 59.9  Tesla MA was also operating a "gallery" in the 
                                                 
 
8 This recitation of facts is drawn from the allegations of 
the plaintiffs' verified complaint and from affidavits and other 
exhibits that were before the motion judge.  A judge ruling on a 
motion to dismiss for lack of standing pursuant to Mass. R. Civ. 
P. 12 (b) (1), 365 Mass. 754 (1974), may properly consider such 
submissions.  See Ginther v. Commissioner of Ins., 427 Mass. 
319, 322 & n.6 (1998); Watros v. Greater Lynn Mental Health & 
Retardation Ass'n, 421 Mass. 106, 108-109 (1995). 
 
 
9 Class 1 licenses are granted to "[a]ny person who is a 
recognized agent of a motor vehicle manufacturer or a seller of 
motor vehicles made by such manufacturer whose authority to sell 
the same is created by a written contract with such manufacturer 
or with some person authorized in writing by such manufacturer 
to enter into such contract, and whose principal business is the 
6 
 
Natick Mall at which interested individuals could view a Tesla 
display vehicle and learn about Tesla products and electric 
motor vehicles in general.  The plaintiffs alleged in their 
complaint that the gallery was the functional equivalent of a 
dealership showroom, intended to generate sales of Tesla 
vehicles.  The defendants have denied that any sales of vehicles 
have been made or facilitated at the gallery.  In any event, 
between the time of the motion judge's ruling on the plaintiffs' 
request for a preliminary injunction and his ruling on the 
defendants' motion to dismiss, the board approved Tesla MA's 
license application and issued a class 1 license to Tesla MA, 
permitting it to operate a sales office located on West Central 
Street in Natick (town).10 
                                                                                                                                                             
sale of new motor vehicles."  G. L. c. 140, § 58 (b).  The 
licensing process is the subject of G. L. c. 140, § 59. 
 
 
10 MSADA and Brigham-Gill Motorcars, Inc., a Massachusetts 
motor vehicle dealer that is not involved in this litigation, 
challenged the issuance of the license to Tesla MA.  They 
commenced an action in the Superior Court seeking declaratory 
relief pursuant to G. L. c. 231A, and relief in the nature of 
certiorari pursuant to G. L. c. 249, § 4, alleging that the 
license violated G. L. c. 93B, § 4 (c) (10).  A different judge 
in the Superior Court allowed Tesla MA to intervene in that 
action and then dismissed the action on motion of Tesla MA and 
the board of selectmen of Natick.  The judge ruled that the 
plaintiffs lacked standing to maintain the action because they 
had not demonstrated a legally cognizable injury, and because 
the statute governing the issuance of the license, G. L. c. 140, 
§ 59, did not give them a right to challenge the granting of the 
license.  The order dismissing the complaint in that action came 
after the order dismissing the complaint in this case, but 
7 
 
 
Statutory framework.  Chapter 93B was added to the General 
Laws in 1970 (see St. 1970, c. 814, § 1).  It was, and continues 
to be, "a comprehensive statute covering an array of business 
practices in the automobile industry."  Beard Motors, 395 Mass. 
at 430.  It "was enacted in recognition of the potentially 
oppressive power of automobile manufacturers and distributors in 
relation to their affiliated dealers."  Id. at 432.  "The 
statute aims at eliminating industry practices which may be 
reasonably thought to operate unfairly or coercively.  It is 
designed to protect franchisees from having to succumb to 
dictation by manufacturers pressing their own interests in 
disregard of the health of other elements in the trade and 
perhaps ultimately of the welfare of the public."  Tober Foreign 
Motors, Inc. v. Reiter Oldsmobile, Inc., 376 Mass. 313, 322 
(1978) (Tober).  See Brown, A Bill of Rights for Auto Dealers, 
12 B.C. Indus. & Commercial L. Rev. 757 (1971) (Brown). 
 
General Laws c. 93B, as enacted in 1970, remained in effect 
and in the same general form through 2002.  Before the 2002 
amendments, c. 93B, § 3 (a), declared unlawful the use of 
                                                                                                                                                             
neither MSADA nor Brigham-Gill appealed the judgment of 
dismissal. 
 
 
Tesla and Tesla MA argue, as an alternative basis for 
upholding the judgment of dismissal in this case, that the 
plaintiffs are barred by principles of res judicata from 
relitigating the issue of standing.  Given the result we reach, 
we need not resolve that contention. 
8 
 
"unfair methods of competition and unfair or deceptive acts or 
practices, as defined in [c. 93B, §] 4."  See G. L. c. 93B, § 3 
(a), inserted by St. 1970, c. 814, § 1.  Section 4 (3), in turn, 
itemized "a considerable array of oppressive practices," Tober, 
376 Mass. at 320, by manufacturers and distributors that were 
deemed to be violations of § 3 (a).  See G. L. c. 93B, § 4 (3) 
(a)-(m), inserted by St. 1970, c. 814, § 1, and as amended 
through St. 1977, c. 717, § 3.  When originally enacted, this 
itemized list was described by one author as the "The Dealers' 
'Bill of Rights' Provision," and was intended to protect 
franchised dealerships from specific types of abuses by their 
manufacturers.  Brown, supra at 799-806.  Chapter 93B also had a 
section authorizing the Attorney General, at the request of a 
dealer, manufacturer, or distributor, to enforce compliance with 
the chapter in accordance with G. L. c. 93A, §§ 4-8, inclusive, 
see c. 93B, § 12, as amended by St. 1977, c. 717, § 5, as well 
as a provision conferring a private right of action on motor 
vehicle dealers damaged by one or more of the proscribed acts or 
practices.  See G. L. c. 93B, § 12A, as amended by St. 1985, 
c. 689, § 2. 
 
The 2002 statutes repealed in its entirety the then-
existing c. 93B and replaced it with a new c. 93B.  See St. 
2002, c. 222, § 3.  However, many of the core provisions and the 
general structure of the previous statute have remained 
9 
 
essentially the same.  Specifically, § 3 (a) of the new c. 93B11 
continues to declare unlawful the use of "[u]nfair methods of 
competition and unfair or deceptive acts and practices, as 
defined in [§] 4," and § 4 (c), like the former § 4 (3), 
consists of an itemized list of specific acts that are deemed to 
be violative of § 3 (a).  Although the section number has 
changed, c. 93B continues to give the Attorney General the power 
to enforce compliance with the statute on request of any dealer, 
manufacturer, or distributor, see c. 93B, § 14, inserted by St. 
2002, c. 222, § 3. 
 
Of particular concern in this case are new § 4 (c) (10) and 
new § 15 (a).  Under § 4 (c) (10), it is unlawful for a 
manufacturer, distributor, or franchisor representative "to own 
or operate, either directly or indirectly through any 
subsidiary, parent company or firm, a motor vehicle dealership 
located in the commonwealth of the same line make as any of the 
vehicles manufactured, assembled or distributed by the 
manufacturer or distributor."  G. L. c. 93B, § 4 (c) (10), 
inserted by St. 2002, c. 222, § 3.  Under the cognate provision 
of the version of the statute that existed just before its 2002 
amendments, it was unlawful for a manufacturer, distributor, or 
wholesaler "to own and operate, either directly or indirectly 
                                                 
 
11 The statute was amended by St. 2012, c. 152.  Use of the 
words "new" or "now" in reference to G. L. c. 93B, means the 
statute inserted by St. 2002, c. 222, § 3. 
10 
 
through any subsidiary, parent or affiliated company or firm, a 
motor vehicle dealership within the relevant market area of a 
motor vehicle dealer of the same line make."  See G. L. c. 93B, 
§ 4 (3) (k), as amended through St. 1977, c. 717, § 3.  Section 
15 (a) creates a private right of action for dealers injured by 
statutory violations –- a right that formerly was set out in 
c. 93B, § 12A -- and adds a private right of action for 
manufacturers and distributors who may suffer injury on account 
of statutory violations by dealers.12 
 
Discussion.  The plaintiffs urge us to read literally the 
language of G. L. c. 93B, §§ 4 (c) (10) and 15 (a), and to 
conclude that they have standing.  In particular, they argue 
that the plain language of § 15 (a) permits "[a]ny . . . motor 
vehicle dealer" who has been injured by "any act prohibited or 
declared unlawful under" c. 93B to maintain an action against 
                                                 
 
12  Section 15 (a) provides in relevant part: 
 
 
"Any manufacturer, distributor or motor vehicle dealer 
who suffers any loss of money or property, real or 
personal, as a result of the use or employment by a 
manufacturer, distributor or motor vehicle dealer of an 
unfair method of competition or an unfair or deceptive act 
or practice as defined by this chapter, any act prohibited 
or declared unlawful by this chapter, or any rule or 
regulation adopted under this chapter, may bring an action 
in the superior court, or if applicable in the federal 
district court for the district of Massachusetts, for 
damages and equitable relief, including injunctive relief 
. . . ." 
 
G. L. c. 93B, § 15, inserted by St. 2002, c. 222, § 3. 
11 
 
the offending entity.  Because they see the defendants' 
operation of a factory-owned store selling Tesla brand vehicles 
as a violation of § 4 (c) (10), and therefore an unlawful act 
within the meaning of § 3 (a), they assert that § 15 (a) gives 
them standing.  The plaintiffs' position is that, given the 
unambiguous language of § 15 (a) and § 4 (c) (10), the motion 
judge erred in considering the history and purpose of c. 93B and 
this court's decision in the Beard Motors case to adopt a 
reading of the statute different from the one they advance.  We 
do not agree. 
 
First, although the parties do not address this point, it 
is not entirely clear that the plain language of § 4 (c) (10) 
applies to the defendants' conduct and renders it unlawful, as 
the plaintiffs contend.  They maintain that § 4 (c) (10) 
prohibits a manufacturer such as Tesla, directly or through a 
subsidiary such as Tesla MA, from owning or operating in the 
Commonwealth "a motor vehicle dealership" selling its own line 
make of automobiles.  "Motor vehicle dealership" is a term 
defined in c. 93B as: 
 
"any person who, in the ordinary course of its 
business, is engaged in the business of selling new motor 
vehicles to consumers or other end users pursuant to a 
franchise agreement and who has obtained a class 1 license 
pursuant to the provisions of [G. L. c. 140, §§ 58 & 59]" 
(emphasis added). 
 
12 
 
G. L. c. 93B, § 1, inserted by St. 2002, c. 222, § 3.  Because 
neither Tesla nor Tesla MA is engaged in the business of selling 
new Tesla motor vehicles in Massachusetts "pursuant to a 
franchise agreement," there appears to be a question whether 
Tesla's business model involves the operation of a "motor 
vehicle dealership" within the meaning of c. 93B, § 4 (c) (10), 
and therefore whether, by its literal terms, the proscription of 
§ 4 (c) (10) applies to the defendants at all. 
 
Second, and more significantly, the plaintiffs take too 
narrow an approach to the task of interpreting the statutory 
provisions at issue.  While the specific language of a statute 
is obviously key, "[t]he general and familiar rule is that a 
statute must be interpreted according to the intent of the 
Legislature ascertained from all its words construed by the 
ordinary and approved usage of the language, considered in 
connection with the cause of its enactment, the mischief or 
imperfection to be remedied and the main object to be 
accomplished."  Hanlon v. Rollins, 286 Mass. 444, 447 (1934).  
This is particularly true when a party's standing is the issue 
to be decided.  Indeed, in the Beard Motors case, where the 
plaintiff's standing was precisely the question at hand, the 
13 
 
court rejected essentially the same approach to statutory 
interpretation as the plaintiffs here advance.13  We stated: 
 
"We have often recognized that not every party who can 
claim an injury as a result of violations of a statute or 
regulation has standing to bring an action thereunder.  
This is true even when a literal reading of the statute, 
without regard to the Legislature's purpose in enacting it, 
would appear to provide a broader grant of standing.  See, 
e.g., Gallo v. Division of Water Pollution Control, 374 
Mass. 278, 283 (1978) (statute authorizing action by 'any 
. . . person interested'); Circle Lounge & Grille, Inc. v. 
Board of Appeal of Boston, 324 Mass. 427, 429 (1949) 
(statute authorizing action by 'any person aggrieved'); 
Monroe v. Cooper, 235 Mass. 33, 34-35 (1920) (same).  The 
scope of the grant of authority to bring an action for 
violation of G. L. c. 93B, § 12A [now § 15], must be 
                                                 
 
13 In Beard Motors, Inc. v. Toyota Motor Distribs., Inc., 
395 Mass. 428, 429 (1985) (Beard Motors), a franchised Chevrolet 
dealership (Beard) had entered into a contract with a franchised 
Toyota dealership (Bullock) to purchase the latter.  The 
agreement was conditioned on Bullock's obtaining consent to the 
assignment from the relevant Toyota distributor and the Toyota 
importer for the United States.  Id.  It suffices to say that 
consent was not forthcoming and the sale did not take place.  
Id.  Beard commenced an action against the distributor and the 
importer, claiming a violation of G. L. c. 93B, § 4 (3) (i), id. 
at 430, as then in effect, which required the written consent to 
the assignment of the manufacturer, distributor or wholesaler, 
"which consent shall not unreasonably be withheld" (emphasis 
added).  G. L. c. 93B, § 4 (3) (i), as amended through St. 1977, 
c. 717, § 3.  The sole issue in the case was whether Beard, 
never having been a Toyota dealer, had standing under G. L. 
c. 93B, § 12A (now § 15 [a]), to maintain an action against 
Toyota, claiming violation of a subsection of § 4 (3) (now § 4 
[c]).  Beard Motors, 395 Mass. at 430. 
 
 
The court examined the language, history, and purposes of 
the statute.  Despite the seemingly broad language of § 12A, 
which, like the present § 15 (a), on its face conferred standing 
on any motor vehicle dealer to maintain an action against a 
distributor alleging an unfair act or practice in violation of 
the statute, Beard did not have standing because its alleged 
injury was not within the statute's intended area of concern.  
Id. at 431-433. 
14 
 
determined with reference to the context and subject matter 
of the statute.  See Boston Edison Co. v. Boston 
Redevelopment Auth., 374 Mass. 37, 44 (1977); Ayer v. 
Commissioners on Height of Bldgs. in Boston, 242 Mass. 30, 
33 (1922).  Whether Beard has standing under § 12A depends 
upon the intent of the Legislature.  To determine the 
intent of the Legislature, we look to both the language and 
purposes of the act.  Gallo v. Division of Water Pollution 
Control, supra at 284. 
 
 
"Unless the Legislature has clearly indicated that it 
intends a broader grant of standing, see, e.g., Fournier v. 
Troianello, 332 Mass. 636, 639 (1955), we have generally 
looked to whether the party claiming to have standing has 
alleged an injury 'within the area of concern of the 
statute or regulatory scheme under which the injurious 
action has occurred.'  Penal Insts. Comm'r for Suffolk 
County v. Commissioner of Correction, 382 Mass. 527, 532 
(1981), quoting Massachusetts Ass'n of Indep. Ins. Agents & 
Brokers v. Commissioner of Ins., 373 Mass. 290, 293 (1977).  
See also Circle Lounge & Grille, Inc. v. Board of Appeals 
of Boston, supra at 429-430 ('It was no part of the purpose 
of the zoning regulations to protect business from 
competition,' therefore, a person alleging injury due to 
increase in competition is not a 'person aggrieved' within 
the meaning of the statute).  An analysis of the provisions 
of G. L. c. 93B and of the Legislature's apparent 
objectives in enacting the statute leads to the conclusion 
that Beard has not alleged injury within the area of 
concern of the statute." 
 
Beard Motors, 395 Mass. at 431-432. 
 
The plaintiffs here attempt to distinguish the holding of 
Beard Motors by focusing on its particular facts, arguing that 
the court looked to the history and purpose of the statute to 
avoid reaching an illogical result in the case.  We disagree.  
Beard Motors and the cases cited in that case stand for the 
well-settled proposition that, in matters of standing to 
maintain actions for statutory violations, courts must look to 
15 
 
the history and purpose of the statute to determine its intended 
"area of concern."  The objective is not merely to avoid 
illogical results, but to respect the Legislature's intent by 
recognizing standing only for those whom the statute is intended 
to protect.14 
 
The plaintiffs also maintain that, even if one were to take 
into account the history and purpose of the statute, they have 
standing to pursue their claim because theirs is a type of 
injury that the Legislature intended to be remedied by c. 93B.  
Their claimed injury is that they will be at a disadvantage 
competing with the defendants, who will be selling Tesla brand 
vehicles through company-owned stores and not through franchised 
dealerships.  They allege that "[u]nless the defendants are 
enjoined, they will be allowed to compete unfairly with the 
dealers as their model of manufacturer owned dealerships with 
remote service centers will allow Tesla and Tesla MA financial 
                                                 
 
14 The plaintiffs claim to recognize that a determination of 
the statute's area of concern is critical, yet argue that the 
area of concern is to be determined (absent ambiguity or 
illogical results) solely from the language of the statute.  To 
the contrary, numerous cases of this court, addressing standing 
issues in a variety of contexts, have held that we find the 
intended area of concern, and hence the interests that the 
Legislature intended to protect, based on consideration not only 
of the language of a statute, but also on an examination of its 
history and purpose.  In addition to the cases cited in the 
passage from Beard Motors quoted in the text, see, e.g., HSBC 
Bank USA, N.A. v. Matt, 464 Mass. 193, 200 (2013), and cases 
cited; Enos v. Secretary of Envtl. Affairs, 432 Mass. 132, 135-
136 (2000), and cases cited. 
16 
 
savings which would not be available to Massachusetts dealers 
who must spend considerably to conform to Massachusetts law.  
This could cause inequitable pricing which also [could] cause 
consumer confusion and the inability to fairly consider the 
various automobiles offered."  Contrary to the plaintiffs' 
assertion, however, the type of competitive injury they describe 
between unaffiliated entities is not within the statute's area 
of concern.  See American Honda Motor Co. v. Bernardi's, Inc., 
432 Mass. 425, 436 (2000) (discussing "relevant market area" 
requirement of statute then in effect; "Chapter 93B was not 
intended to provide all dealers with a statutory right to seek 
protection from potential competition"); Tober, 376 Mass. at 
322-323 (discussing statute's purpose as "preserving a sound 
competitive market free of the domination of oligopolists at the 
top of a vertical chain of manufacturer, distribution and sale. 
. . .  But if the statute works sometimes to protect established 
dealers from new competition, this may be seen not as the object 
of the legislation, but as an incident in the pursuit of an 
ultimately procompetitive goal"). 
 
As previously discussed, the purpose of c. 93B historically 
was to protect motor vehicle dealers from a host of unfair acts 
and practices historically directed at them by their own brand 
manufacturers and distributors.  The 2002 amendments did not 
change this goal.  It is difficult, if not impossible, to view 
17 
 
the current version of c. 93B, § 4 (c), as representing anything 
other than the same dominant thrust, i.e., to prevent abuses by 
manufacturers of their franchisee dealers.15  The various 
subsections of § 4 (c) other than § 4 (c) (10) all clearly 
relate to relationships between manufacturers, distributors, and 
franchise representatives, on the one hand, and their affiliated 
dealers, on the other.  See G. L. c. 93B, § 4 (c) (1) (governing 
allocation of new vehicles by manufacturers and distributors to 
their dealers); § 4 (c) (2) (governing disclosure to dealers of 
methodology by which such vehicles are allocated); § 4 (c) (3) 
(governing delivery of vehicles from manufacturers and 
distributors to their franchised dealers); § 4 (c) (4) 
(proscribing threats to terminate franchise agreements); 
§ 4 (c) (5) (prohibiting sales of same model vehicles to 
different dealers at disparate prices); § 4 (c) (6) (prohibiting 
                                                 
 
15 The plaintiffs suggest that the Beard Motors decision, 
and our subsequent decision in American Honda Motor Co. v. 
Bernardi's, Inc., 432 Mass. 425 (2000) (American Honda), are of 
limited utility in determining the full extent of the protection 
intended for dealers under G. L. c. 93B, because those cases 
involved subsections of c. 93B, § 4, that applied on their face 
only to affiliated parties.  We are not persuaded by this myopic 
reading of the cases.  Beard Motors, in particular, spoke in 
broad terms about the history and intent of the entire statute, 
not just the specific subsection that was in play in that case.  
Beard Motors, 395 Mass. at 430-433.  Beard, like the plaintiffs 
in this case, maintained that it was injured by unlawful acts of 
a party with whom it was not affiliated.  It was precisely 
because the statute was intended to apply only to affiliated 
parties that the court refused to recognize Beard's standing.  
Id. at 432-433. 
18 
 
sales to individuals at price lower than price offered and 
charged to dealers); § 4 (c) (7) (prohibiting sales of parts and 
accessories to different dealers at disparate prices); 
§ 4 (c) (8) (proscribing imposition of unreasonable restrictions 
on financial arrangement or structure of dealerships); 
§ 4 (c) (9) (proscribing receipt of money, goods, or services 
from persons transacting with dealers, without accounting to 
dealers for same); § 4 (c) (11) (prohibiting coercion of dealers 
to release, assign, or waive prospectively their rights under 
chapter); § 4 (c) (12) (proscribing use of parent company, 
subsidiary, or agent to accomplish what would otherwise be 
prohibited conduct by manufacturer or distributor under 
chapter).  It would be anomalous to find, within this detailed 
list of rights and protections that are conferred on dealers 
vis-à-vis their manufacturers and distributors, a lone provision 
giving dealers protection against competition from an 
unaffiliated manufacturer.  Yet that is how the plaintiffs would 
have us construe § 4 (c) (10).  Absent a clear indication that 
the Legislature intended to have § 4 (c) (10) differ from 
§ 4 (c) (1)-(9) and (11)-(12) in such a significant way, we are 
not persuaded by the plaintiffs' reading of § 4 (c) (10). 
 
As the defendants suggest, the language of that subsection 
can more easily and naturally be understood as eliminating the 
"relevant market area" restriction that existed in c. 93B, § 4 
19 
 
(3) (k), as amended by St. 1977, c. 717, § 3, the antecedent 
version of § 4 (c) (10) that was in effect prior to the 2002 
amendments.  Under § 4 (3) (k), a manufacturer was precluded 
(with limited exceptions not relevant here) from owning and 
operating "a motor vehicle dealership within the relevant market 
area of a motor vehicle dealer of the same line make."  Dealers 
were thus protected from having to compete with their affiliated 
manufacturers for sales within a defined geographical area.16  
The 2002 amendments broadened that protection:  § 4 (c) (10) 
precludes a manufacturer from competing for sales with an 
affiliated dealership by operating a dealership anywhere within 
the Commonwealth, not just within the defined "relevant market 
area" of one of its affiliated dealers.  G. L. c. 93B, 
§ 4 (c) (10). 
 
The legislative history relating specifically to the 
enactment of § 4 (c) (10) in 2002 supports our reading of this 
section.  The sole item of legislative history relied on by the 
plaintiffs is a "position paper" written by MSADA and presented 
to the Legislature's Joint Committee on Commerce and Labor in 
                                                 
 
16 Determining "relevant market area," as defined in the 
statute, has proved to be quite challenging, and litigation 
concerning the relevant market area could be quite time-
consuming and expensive.  See American Honda, 432 Mass. at 427-
434; Ricky Smith Pontiac, Inc. v. Subaru of New England, Inc., 
14 Mass. App. Ct. 396, 412 (1982) (observing that statutory 
definition of relevant market area "would perplex even the most 
percipient logician"). 
20 
 
May, 2001, at the time the committee was considering an earlier 
version of amendments to c. 93B, 2001 Senate Doc. No. 87.  The 
MSADA paper explained the key provisions of that bill and 
expressed the association's support for it.  The paper stated 
that 2001 Senate Doc. No. 87 would eliminate two "loopholes" 
under c. 93B as then in effect,17 by "explicitly prevent[ing] 
factory ownership or operation of new or used vehicle stores."  
Specifically, according to the paper, the Senate bill would 
"prohibit the direct sale of new cars to consumers by the 
factories."18 
                                                 
 
17 MSADA's paper claimed that G. L. c. 93B as then in effect 
prohibited "manufacturers from directly owning and operating 
dealerships in Massachusetts." That is not correct.  General 
Laws c. 93B, § 4 (3) (k), as amended by St. 1977, c. 717, § 3, 
only prohibited manufacturers from owning and operating a 
dealership "within the relevant market area of a motor vehicle 
dealer of the same line make." 
 
 
18 2001 Senate Doc. No. 87, in relevant part, proposed the 
following language for the new G. L. c. 93B, § 4 (c) (10): 
 
 
"(c) It shall be deemed a violation of subsection (a) 
of section 3 for a manufacturer, distributor, or franchisor 
representative:  . . . (10) to own or operate, either 
directly or indirectly through any subsidiary or parent 
company or firm, a motor vehicle dealership located in the 
commonwealth of the same line make as any of the vehicles 
manufactured, assembled or distributed by the manufacturer 
or distributor.  It shall also be a violation of subsection 
(a) of section 3 for a manufacturer, but not for a 
distributor, either directly or indirectly through any 
subsidiary or parent company or firm:  (a) to obtain a 
class 1 or class 2 license issued pursuant to the 
provisions of [§] 58 or 59 of [c.] 140; or (b) to own or 
operate a business within the commonwealth for the purpose 
of selling motor vehicle parts or service directly to 
21 
 
 
However, 2001 Senate Doc. No. 87 was not the bill that 
ultimately was enacted.  Rather, the bill that, a year later, 
the Legislature enacted and the then Acting Governor Jane Swift 
signed into law as St. 2002, c. 222, was 2002 Senate Doc. No. 
2412.19  This bill, and therefore the new G. L. c. 93B, § 4 (c) 
(10), that resulted from it, did not include the language from 
2001 Senate Doc. No. 87 barring manufacturers from obtaining 
directly or through a subsidiary a class 1 license that is 
emphasized in note 18, supra.  Accordingly, language that would 
have put into place (with certainty) the type of prohibition 
that the plaintiffs here seek to read into § 4 (c) (10) was not 
included in the statute as enacted. 
 
Moreover, two other documents in Acting Governor Swift's 
papers concerning the passage of St. 2002, c. 222, indicate that 
the language in the proposed § 4 (c) (10) precluding a 
                                                                                                                                                             
customers; or (c) to enter into a contract with a business 
or third-party located in the commonwealth, which does not 
have and cannot obtain a class 1 license issued pursuant to 
the provisions of [§] 58 of [c.] 140, giving said business 
or third-party the right to provide warranty service to 
motor vehicles it manufactures, assembles or distributes" 
(emphasis added). 
 
 
19 The bill cited in the text, 2002 Senate Doc. No. 2412, 
itself was derived from 2002 House Doc. No. 4997.  In all 
respects material to this case, the two bills are identical.  
Moreover, as indicated in the text, infra, after 2002 Senate 
Doc. No. 2412 was passed by both branches of the Legislature and 
sent to the acting Governor, the review conducted by the acting 
Governor's staff referred to the legislation as "House Doc. No. 
4997." 
22 
 
manufacturer from owning or operating a motor vehicle dealership 
was intended and understood to apply only to manufacturers 
owning or operating dealerships in competition with their 
affiliated, own brand dealers.  In particular, the acting 
Governor's papers include a paper prepared by MSADA in May, 
2002, addressing the predecessor to 2002 Senate Doc. No. 2412, 
2002 House Doc. No. 4997.  See note 19, supra.  This second 
paper, like the one written to address the Senate bill a year 
earlier, summarized the key provisions of 2002 House Doc. No. 
4997 and expressed the association's support for it.  
Recognizing (at least implicitly) that the absolute ban on 
manufacturers obtaining class 1 licenses had by that time been 
eliminated from the proposed legislation, the association wrote 
in its 2002 paper that "House 4997 would create a statewide ban 
on factory ownership of dealerships to prevent manufacturers 
from directly competing with their own dealers by indirectly 
owning or operating dealerships in Massachusetts" (emphasis 
added).  In other words, a manufacturer might obtain a class 1 
license to sell vehicles, but under the new legislation it would 
not be able sell the same line make in Massachusetts if it 
already had an affiliated dealer within the Commonwealth. 
 
The second relevant paper in the acting Governor's file is 
a memorandum to her from her deputy chief legal counsel in 
August, 2002, when 2002 Senate Doc. No. 2412 was before her for 
23 
 
signature.  The memorandum states that "[t]he purpose of this 
law is apparently to protect dealers in their relationships with 
manufacturers, given the imbalance of bargaining power between 
the two."  Further, in an apparent reference to § 4 (c) (10), 
the memorandum states that "dealers wanted to clarify that 
manufacturers should not be able to operate as dealers too (and 
thereby compete with their own franchisees)" (emphasis added); 
the memorandum also indicates that the bill's language was in 
response to dealers' complaints "that manufacturers can compete 
unfairly with their own franchisees by owning their own 
dealerships" (emphasis added).  Finally, the memorandum assures 
the acting Governor that the amendments to G. L. c. 93B included 
in the proposed legislation were negotiated at length to the 
satisfaction of all concerned -- manufacturers, dealers, and 
consumer interests. 
 
We take from these additional materials in the acting 
Governor's file that St. 2002, c. 222, was intended and 
understood only to prohibit manufacturer-owned dealerships when, 
unlike Tesla, the manufacturer already had an affiliated dealer 
or dealers in Massachusetts. 
 
Conclusion.  With a proper understanding of the language, 
history, and purpose of the statute in mind, we hold that G. L. 
c. 93B, § 15, does not confer standing on a motor vehicle dealer 
to maintain an action for violation of G. L. c. 93B, § 4 (c) 
24 
 
(10), against a manufacturer with which the dealer is not 
affiliated.  We therefore affirm the Superior Court's judgment 
dismissing the plaintiffs' action for lack of standing. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
So ordered.