Mich. Comp. Laws » Michigan Compiled Laws / Chapter 445 / Act 274 of 1984
Michigan Compiled Laws

Mich. Comp. Laws § 445.771 (2026)

Definitions.

✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section MI-LEGlegislature.mi.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

MICHIGAN ANTITRUST REFORM ACT


Act 274 of 1984


445.771 Definitions.

Sec. 1.

    As used in this act:

    (a) "Person" means an individual, corporation, business trust, partnership, association, or any other legal entity.

    (b) "Relevant market" means the geographical area of actual or potential competition in a line of trade or commerce, all or any part of which is within this state.

    (c) "Trade or commerce" means the conduct of a business for profit or not for profit producing or providing goods, commodities, property, or services and includes, without limitation, advertising, franchising, solicitation, offering for sale, lease, or distribution of a service or property, tangible or intangible, real, personal or mixed, or any other article of commerce.

    (d) "Unit of government" means this state or an agency, instrumentality, political subdivision, or public corporation of this state, including but not limited to municipal corporations, quasi-municipal corporations, and authorities, and including their officials, employees, and agents when acting in their official capacity.

History: 1984, Act 274, Eff. Mar. 29, 1985

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 48 cases (3 in the last 5 years), 1986–2024 · leading case: Innovation Ventures v. Liquid Mfg., 885 N.W.2d 861 (Mich. 2016).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Innovation Ventures v. Liquid Mfg., 885 N.W.2d 861 (Mich. 2016). · cites it 2× “Instead, the Court should have applied the rule of reason to evaluate the parties’ noncompete agreement.”
Hardrick v. Auto Club Ins., 294 Mich. App. 651 (Mich. Ct. App. 2011). · cites it 2× “” MCL 445.771(b). The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit has described the test for ascertaining a relevant market as involving “the identification of those products or services that are either (1) identical to or (2) available substitutes for the defendant’s…”
In Re Nestorovski Est., 769 N.W.2d 720 (Mich. Ct. App. 2009). · cites it 2× “The plaintiffs asserted that because the circuit courts have exclusive jurisdiction of claims under the Michigan Antitrust Reform Act (MARA), MCL 445.771, the circuit court erred by referring to arbitration the question whether the client solicitation clause violated MARA.”
ETT Ambulance Serv. Corp. v. Rockford Ambulance, Inc., 516 N.W.2d 498 (Mich. Ct. App. 1994). · cites it 3× “Plaintiff filed a first amended complaint that reasserted its claim for injunctive relief in count i and formulated a new claim for violation of the Michigan Antitrust Reform Act, MCL 445.771 et seq.; MSA 28.70(1) et seq.”
Bio-Magnetic Resonance, Inc v. Dep't of Pub. Health, 593 N.W.2d 641 (Mich. Ct. App. 1999). · cites it 3× “Without waiting for the issuance of a final decision by the director of the mdph, plaintiff initiated this lawsuit against the mdph by filing a complaint in the Court of Claims alleging, among other things, 2 that specific sections of the CON review standards employed by the…”
Rooyakker & Sitz, PLLC v. Plante & Moran, PLLC, 742 N.W.2d 409 (Mich. Ct. App. 2007). “Plaintiffs also moved for summary disposition, 3 contending that the parties’ agreement was unenforceable because the client solicitation clause violated the Michigan Antitrust Reform Act (MARA), MCL 445.771 et seq., and because its purpose had been frustrated by the closing of…”
Hamade v. Sunoco, Inc., 721 N.W.2d 233 (Mich. Ct. App. 2006). “See MCL 445.771 et seq. We note that, in plaintiffs statement of the question presented, plaintiff challenges the validity of the trial court’s grant of summary disposition on all of his “remaining claims,” without specifying which claims constitute “remaining claims.”
In Re Digit. Music Antitrust Litig., 812 F. Supp. 2d 390 (S.D.N.Y. 2011). “The Michigan statute explicitly requires the unlawful restraint of trade to be in "a relevant market,” Mich. Comp. Laws Ann. § 445.771 , which it defines as an area of competition, "all or any part of which is within the state,” Id.”
St Clair Med., PC v. Borgiel, 715 N.W.2d 914 (Mich. Ct. App. 2006). “Next, defendant argues that the covenant not to compete is unreasonable and violates the Michigan Antitrust Reform Act (MARA), MCL 445.771 et seq. We disagree. “A contract.”
Sheet Metal Workers Local 441 Health & Welfare Plan v. Glaxosmithkline, PLC, 737 F. Supp. 2d 380 (E.D. Pa. 2010). “Michigan Plaintiff UFCW asserts a cause of action for monopolization in violation of the Michigan Antitrust Reform Act (“MARA”), codified at Mich. Comp. Laws § 445.771 , et seq. SAC ¶ 186.”
A & M SUPPLY CO. v. Microsoft Corp., 654 N.W.2d 572 (Mich. Ct. App. 2002). “In this action under the Michigan Antitrust Reform Act (MARA), MCL 445.771 et seq., plaintiff A&M Supply Company alleges that defendant Microsoft Corporation illegally monopolized the personal computer software market in Michigan, harming A&M and many other residents of this…”
J. Lewis Cooper Co. v. Diageo North Am., Inc., 370 F. Supp. 2d 613 (E.D. Mich. 2005). · cites it 2× “Count two alleges violation of the Michigan Antitrust Reform Act, Mich. Comp. Laws § 445.771 et. seq. Count three alleges a civil conspiracy in violation of Michigan law.”
Show all 48 citing cases →
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 445.771(a) — 2 cases
ETT Ambulance Serv. Corp. v. Rockford Ambulance, Inc., 516 N.W.2d 498 (Mich. Ct. App. 1994). “Plaintiff filed a first amended complaint that reasserted its claim for injunctive relief in count i and formulated a new claim for violation of the Michigan Antitrust Reform Act, MCL 445.771 et seq.; MSA 28.70(1) et seq.”
Blake Putman Md v. Hills & Dales Gen. Hosp. (Mich. Ct. App. 2024).
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 445.771(b) — 1 case
Hardrick v. Auto Club Ins., 294 Mich. App. 651 (Mich. Ct. App. 2011). “” MCL 445.771(b). The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit has described the test for ascertaining a relevant market as involving “the identification of those products or services that are either (1) identical to or (2) available substitutes for the defendant’s…”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 445.771(c) — 2 cases
ETT Ambulance Serv. Corp. v. Rockford Ambulance, Inc., 516 N.W.2d 498 (Mich. Ct. App. 1994). “Plaintiff filed a first amended complaint that reasserted its claim for injunctive relief in count i and formulated a new claim for violation of the Michigan Antitrust Reform Act, MCL 445.771 et seq.; MSA 28.70(1) et seq.”
Blake Putman Md v. Hills & Dales Gen. Hosp. (Mich. Ct. App. 2024).
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 445.771(d) — 1 case
Bio-Magnetic Resonance, Inc v. Dep't of Pub. Health, 593 N.W.2d 641 (Mich. Ct. App. 1999). “Without waiting for the issuance of a final decision by the director of the mdph, plaintiff initiated this lawsuit against the mdph by filing a complaint in the Court of Claims alleging, among other things, 2 that specific sections of the CON review standards employed by the…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.