For the first time in 27 years, Michigan finally has a functional Consumer Protection law. We cannot let lawmakers destroy it again. Attorney and Michigan Association for Justice member Paul Novak details this in his op-ed to the Detroit News. His words speak to the timeliness of Michigan's consumer protection movement and the importance of protecting our consumer protection laws.

On July 31st, the Michigan Supreme Court overruled the results of court cases Smith v. Globe Life in 1999 and Liss v. Lewiston-Richards in 2007 that dismantled the Michigan Consumer Protection Act (MCPA). These court cases shielded businesses from accountability for unfair or deceptive practices as long as the general transactions involved in those practices were permitted by law. Since these cases, consumers were victim to financial scams, price gouging, and dishonest deals, with no way to receive compensation.

"Consider a licensed contractor who intentionally lowballs a quote on your new roof, then doubles the price after removing the old roof. Being licensed to build or repair homes does not mean the state specifically authorized a contractor to deceive a customer. Yet under Smith and Liss, the threshold question often became whether the broader business transaction was authorized or regulated, not whether the alleged conduct itself was deceptive." - Attorney Paul F. Novak

Because of these rulings, Michigan's consumer protection statutes were ranked as the 49th weakest in the country, only tied for last place with Rhode Island.

Everything changed with Attorney General v. Eli Lilly, where the Attorney General merely attempted to launch an investigation into pharmaceutical manufacturer Eli Lilly's pricing standards for insulin. The company argued that because the United States Food & Drug Administration generally authorized them to sell insulin, the Attorney General could not investigate. Thankfully, the Michigan Supreme Court disagreed, and not only allowed the Attorney General to proceed with the investigation, but held that Smith and Liss were wrongly decided. If a company wants to demonstrate immunity from the MCPA, the specific transaction or conduct in question must be authorized, not just their business. Businesses should also take another look at their consumer-pricing policies, contracts, marketing, and sales practices to ensure they are still in compliance with the revived MCPA, as unfair or deceitful practices that were previously permitted under the old law are no longer given full permission to proceed. As Novak states: A license to operate is not a license to deceive.

Now, lawmakers are trying to pass HB 5725, which if passed, would codify the incorrect interpretation of the exemption into Michigan law and prevent consumers from holding unscrupulous businesses accountable. Lawmakers are trying to pitch this as a "quick fix" for an incorrect decision, but consumer advocates and ordinary Michiganders know the truth.

Click here to contact your State Representative and tell them to vote NO on HB 5725.