Thats not what the parent is saying. The parent is saying that, in the same way that retailers might act on the knowledge that OSX users are willing to pay higher prices for goods, insurers act on the knowledge that Tesla drivers are more risk-averse.
Its a pretty bold accusation. Car insurance is probably the most competitive market out there.
Why would dozens of car insurers in multiple states collude to hurt poor Tesla and put themselves at risk of Federal and State sanction? If they were doing that for a tiny niche automaker like Tesla, why wouldn’t they screw over BMW or Lexus?
This whole controversy is just a distraction to draw attention from Tesla’s service practices and support for a integrated “car as a service” model where Tesla owns financing, sales and insurance.
So did Volvo for decades. You didn’t need magic Volvo insurance.
When you have a highly competitive market, and most participants decide to make an identical business decision that isn’t in their competitive interest (ie charge a high margin for a commodity), that’s generally accepted as evidence of collusion.
