Tesla S with autopilot features."/>

Earlier this week, the Indiana legislature added an amendment to a bill that would have made it illegal for manufacturers to sell cars directly to consumers, a practice that electric vehicle company Tesla employs. But on Thursday that amendment was taken out of the bill, all but assuring Tesla’s continued operation in Indiana for the foreseeable future.

The direct-to-consumer business model has been the basis of Tesla’s operations, but it has rankled other car manufacturers and the dealers they sell through. Dealers, for their part, have fought back in several states like Texas, Arizona, and New Jersey, and over the years they've won legal barriers to keep Tesla from selling cars direct from the manufacturer.

The battle in Indiana was interesting because Tesla was honed in on GM, which recently released an electric vehicle that could be competitive with Tesla's forthcoming Model 3. Tesla accused GM of pushing the bill through the state’s legislature in a letter to its customers shared with Ars. However, Tesla could not provide solid proof of GM’s involvement.

GM didn’t respond to that allegation, but it did tell Ars that the company was unequivocally in favor of the bill’s amendment. “All industry participants should operate under the same rules and requirements on fundamental issues that govern how we sell, service, and market our products,” a spokesperson said.

After the amendment was removed from the bill, Tesla wrote to its customers, “The bill’s provision that would have closed down Tesla’s Indiana operations was removed and instead the issue will be sent to summer study by the Senate's Commerce and Technology committee. As a result, Tesla's store in the Fashion Mall at Keystone will remain open indefinitely.”

”We have avoided being closed out of Indiana thanks in large part to you!” the company added.

GM, for its part, e-mailed a statement to Ars Technica saying:

GM is very pleased that we were able to elevate the issue of disparity impacting our dealer partners in Indiana, that this received as much attention as it did, and that this issue advanced as far as it did. We appreciate the Indiana legislature for taking this on, debating, and helping raise the profile of this important issue, which demonstrates the inequity of different competitors having different rules in the marketplace. GM believes in robust competition in the electric vehicle market. We will continue to work on this issue in Indiana and nationally, and will continue to express our concern anywhere we find market participants are operating under different rules.

Traditional automakers have long argued that third-party dealers are good for consumers, who benefit from competition between the dealers and from the fact that dealers generally offer service and financing options at their dealerships. Tesla has argued that a third-party dealer model wouldn’t make sense for the company because dealers wouldn’t make money off those additional services on Tesla’s electric cars.