Glossary · Consumer Protection

Michigan Consumer Protection Act (MCPA): What It Covers & How Courts Narrowed It

By Steve Levine · Updated July 2, 2026 · 7 min read

Quick Answer

The Michigan Consumer Protection Act (MCPA), MCL 445.901 et seq., is Michigan's main consumer-protection law. Section 445.903 enumerates roughly three dozen specific unfair, unconscionable, or deceptive trade practices — including misleading omissions of material fact — and § 445.911 gives consumers a private right of action for actual damages or $250, whichever is greater, plus attorneys' fees, with class actions expressly authorized for actual losses. The Michigan Attorney General also enforces the Act. Its practical reach, however, has been sharply narrowed by the Michigan Supreme Court's reading of the § 445.904 exemption in Smith v. Globe Life (1999) and Liss v. Lewiston-Richards (2007): if the general transaction is "specifically authorized" by a regulatory scheme, the MCPA usually does not apply — even when the specific conduct alleged is not authorized at all.

What the MCPA Is

The Michigan Consumer Protection Act was enacted in 1976 to give Michigan residents a remedy against unfair and deceptive conduct "in the conduct of trade or commerce" — the sale of goods, services, and property primarily for personal, family, or household purposes. Like the Missouri Merchandising Practices Act and New York's GBL §§ 349 & 350, it pairs public enforcement by the state Attorney General with a private right of action for consumers, and it shows up as a Michigan count in many multistate consumer class actions.

The MCPA's drafting style is different from most of its peers, though. Where statutes like New York's § 349 use one broad prohibition on "deceptive acts or practices," the MCPA takes a list-based approach: § 445.903(1) enumerates roughly three dozen specific prohibited methods, acts, and practices, lettered (a) through (kk). A plaintiff must tie the challenged conduct to one or more items on the list.

What § 445.903 Prohibits

The enumerated practices cover most of the classic consumer-deception fact patterns. Among the most frequently invoked:

  1. Misrepresenting characteristics or benefits. Causing confusion about the source, approval, characteristics, ingredients, uses, benefits, or quantities of goods or services.
  2. Passing off used or altered goods. Representing that goods are new or original when they are deteriorated, altered, reconditioned, or used.
  3. Bait advertising and price deception. Advertising goods with no intent to sell them as advertised, or making false or misleading price and "savings" claims.
  4. Failing to reveal material facts. Omitting a material fact the consumer could not reasonably know, where the omission tends to mislead or deceive — the MCPA reaches silence, not just affirmative lies.
  5. Misleading half-truths. Failing to reveal facts that are material to the transaction in light of representations made in a positive manner.
  6. Taking advantage of the consumer. Charging grossly excessive prices over similar available goods, or exploiting a consumer's inability to protect their own interests because of disability, illiteracy, or language barriers.
The full list is longer — it also covers unfulfilled promises, misrepresenting rights and remedies, form-contract abuses, and failing to provide promised goods or refunds. The common thread is conduct that misleads an ordinary consumer or takes unconscionable advantage of one.

The Private Right of Action & Class Actions — § 445.911

Section 445.911 does three things. First, it lets any person bring an action for declaratory and injunctive relief against a practice the Act prohibits. Second, it lets a person who suffers a loss from a violation recover actual damages or $250, whichever is greater, together with reasonable attorneys' fees. That $250 floor plus fee-shifting is what makes small-dollar Michigan consumer claims economically viable at all.

Third — and unusually for a 1970s state statute — the MCPA expressly authorizes class actions: a person who suffers a loss may sue on behalf of a class of "persons residing in or injured in this state" for the actual damages caused by a prohibited practice. Classwide recovery is limited to actual losses (the $250 statutory minimum belongs to individual actions), and the class must still clear Michigan's ordinary class-certification requirements. Claims are subject to a multi-year limitations period — generally six years from the challenged practice — though the exact window can depend on the facts, so timing questions belong with a Michigan attorney.

Attorney General Enforcement

The Michigan Attorney General can investigate suspected violations, issue notices, and bring enforcement actions seeking injunctions and civil penalties for persistent and knowing violations; county prosecutors share enforcement authority. The Act also contemplates guidance to businesses about whether contemplated conduct would violate it, so companies can seek a reading before acting.

In practice, the AG's consumer-protection team is most visible around price-gouging sweeps during emergencies, robocall and scam enforcement, and marketplace practices affecting Michigan residents — and AG actions frequently run parallel to private class actions over the same conduct.

The § 445.904 Exemption — Smith and Liss

The MCPA's defining limitation is judicial, not textual. Section 445.904(1)(a) exempts "a transaction or conduct specifically authorized under laws administered by a regulatory board or officer acting under statutory authority of this state or the United States." Read narrowly, that would simply protect conduct a regulator affirmatively allowed. The Michigan Supreme Court read it much more broadly.

In Smith v. Globe Life Insurance Co. (1999), the court held that the relevant inquiry is whether the general transaction — there, selling credit life insurance — is specifically authorized by law, "regardless of whether the specific misconduct alleged is prohibited." In other words, a licensed, regulated business can be exempt from MCPA claims even when the deception alleged is plainly against the rules of its own regulator. In Liss v. Lewiston-Richards, Inc. (2007), the court extended that logic to licensed residential builders, confirming that the exemption turns on whether the defendant's line of business is authorized and regulated, not on whether the challenged conduct was.

The practical effect is dramatic: because most industries — insurance, banking and lending, home building, auto sales, utilities, health care and more — operate under some licensing or regulatory scheme, Michigan courts have held large categories of defendants exempt. Commentators and consumer advocates have long noted that this reading leaves the MCPA one of the narrower state consumer-protection laws in practical scope, despite its detailed list of prohibitions on paper.

Reform Debates & What It Means for Class Actions

The Smith/Liss exemption has been a recurring target of legislative reform. Michigan lawmakers have repeatedly introduced bills to amend § 445.904 so that the exemption covers only conduct a regulator actually authorized — which would restore claims against regulated businesses for conduct their regulators prohibit — and the Attorney General's office has publicly supported narrowing the exemption. As of this writing, no such amendment has become law, so Smith and Liss remain controlling.

For class-action practice, the upshot is that the MCPA count in a multistate complaint is often the first one attacked on a motion to dismiss: defendants in regulated industries argue the exemption, while plaintiffs work to frame the transaction as ordinary retail commerce outside any specific regulatory authorization. Michigan consumers still appear in nationwide settlements regularly — either under the MCPA where it applies, or through companion claims like unjust enrichment, warranty theories, and the FTC Act-style claims of other states. As always, an MCPA complaint is only allegations; naming a business in one is not a finding of wrongdoing, and settlements resolve claims typically without any admission of liability.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is the Michigan Consumer Protection Act?

The Michigan Consumer Protection Act (MCPA), MCL 445.901 et seq., is Michigan's main consumer-protection law. Unlike broadly worded statutes in some states, § 445.903 lists roughly three dozen specific unfair, unconscionable, or deceptive methods, acts, or practices in the conduct of trade or commerce — from misrepresenting a product's characteristics or benefits to failing to reveal material facts. It is enforced by the Michigan Attorney General and through a private right of action in § 445.911.

What can a consumer recover under the MCPA?

Under MCL 445.911, an individual who suffers a loss from a prohibited practice may recover actual damages or $250, whichever is greater, together with reasonable attorneys' fees. The Act also expressly authorizes class actions on behalf of Michigan consumers for the actual damages caused by a prohibited practice, and courts can issue declaratory and injunctive relief. These are amounts a court may award if a violation is proven, not a guaranteed payout.

Does the MCPA allow class actions?

Yes. MCL 445.911 expressly authorizes a person who suffers a loss to bring a class action on behalf of persons residing in or injured in Michigan for the actual damages caused by a prohibited method, act, or practice. Classwide recovery is limited to actual losses — the $250 statutory minimum applies to individual actions — and the proposed class must still satisfy Michigan's ordinary class-certification requirements.

Why is the MCPA considered a narrow consumer-protection law?

Because of how the Michigan Supreme Court has read the exemption in MCL 445.904(1)(a), which excludes transactions or conduct "specifically authorized" by a regulatory scheme. In Smith v. Globe Life Insurance Co. (1999), the court held the question is whether the general transaction is authorized by law — not whether the specific alleged misconduct is — and in Liss v. Lewiston-Richards, Inc. (2007) it applied that reading to licensed residential builders. The result is that claims against many licensed or regulated businesses, such as insurers, lenders, and builders, are frequently held exempt from the MCPA.

Who enforces the Michigan Consumer Protection Act?

The Michigan Attorney General can investigate and bring enforcement actions seeking injunctions and civil penalties, and county prosecutors have enforcement authority as well. Consumers can also enforce the Act themselves through the private right of action in MCL 445.911, either individually or as a class action. Being named in an MCPA lawsuit is not a finding of wrongdoing — allegations must be proven in court.

Related Terms

About This Page

General legal information about the Michigan Consumer Protection Act, not legal advice. OpenClassActions.com is a consumer news site and is not a law firm or a settlement administrator. Statutes and case law change, and how they apply depends on the facts of a particular situation. For the controlling text, see MCL 445.901 et seq. and the Michigan court decisions interpreting it, including Smith v. Globe Life Insurance Co. and Liss v. Lewiston-Richards, Inc. If you think your rights were affected, consult a qualified attorney in your jurisdiction.

More on Consumer-Protection Statutes

More Class Actions

Farmers Insurance TCPA Do-Not-Call Settlement — Up to $160
With Proof Settlement

Farmers Insurance TCPA Do-Not-Call Settlement — Up to $160

Pro Rata Cash Up to $160 · $1.25M Fund · Do-Not-Call telemarketing claims · Claim by Sept 14, 2026
$59.5M Flo Period Tracker Privacy Settlement
Notice / PIN Settlement

$59.5M Flo Period Tracker Privacy Settlement

Pro Rata Cash (No Proof) · Logged period or pregnancy data Nov 2016 – Feb 2019 · Claim by Oct 15, 2026
$1.1M Team Group DRAM Memory Settlement
No Proof Settlement

$1.1M Team Group DRAM Memory Settlement

Pro Rata Cash (No Proof) · Team Group / T-Force DDR-3/4/5 buyers · Claim by July 7, 2026
Match Group $14M FTC Settlement (Match.com)
With Proof FTC Settlement

Match Group $14M FTC Settlement (Match.com)

$14M Paid to the FTC · Guarantee, cancellation & chargeback practices · No claim form yet
All Open Class Action Settlements
With Proof Settlements

All Open Class Action Settlements

Browse settlements currently accepting claims — many with no proof required.