Dealer's Choice[0] explains why these laws were originally passed; Ford and GM forced dealerships to accept new cars during the 1920 depression and the Great Depression. The laws persist because car dealerships are well-connected politically and donate heavily to campaigns; it's just a special interest group protecting their business model.

[0] https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2006/09/04/dealers-choice...

Emphasizing that it is my opinion, I think it’s easier to reach consumers directly. I haven’t researched the history of car dealerships, but I’m guessing (dangerous) that they came into existence because the locals knew the local market better. Now that they exist, they need to be protected to prevent too much unemployment too fast in local job markets. Anecdotal, but I haven’t heard people talking about the wonderful experience they recently had at their car dealership. I think some of that comes from legal protections and getting comfy.

If I wanted the status quo, I'd argue that dealers have gained enough power to accomplish the same thing without state laws. Look at what happened when US manufacturers tried to decrease the number of dealerships for an example. They fought it out with a barrage of lawsuits and the efforts were only really minimally successful.

Its really unlikely that existing brands would be able to change at this point, at least the US brands.

Maybe only perspective. In my view, car manufacturers should be competing with other car manufacturers, rather than independently operated dealerships. If a dealership provides a value to consumers then it should survive. If not, then the consumers are better off without them.

At the very least, I would like the option to buy directly, since I probably don't use the services provided by the dealership anyway.