Michigan Compiled Laws
Mich. Comp. Laws § 445.772 (2026)
Unlawful contract, combination, or conspiracy.
✓ 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
445.772 Unlawful contract, combination, or conspiracy.
Sec. 2.
A contract, combination, or conspiracy between 2 or more persons in restraint of, or to monopolize, trade or commerce in a relevant market is unlawful.
History: 1984, Act 274, Eff. Mar. 29, 1985
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 45
cases (5 in the last 5 years), 1985–2026 · leading case: Innovation Ventures v. Liquid Mfg., 885 N.W.2d 861 (Mich. 2016).
Innovation Ventures v. Liquid Mfg., 885 N.W.2d 861 (Mich. 2016). “13 MCL 445.772, which governs general agreements, provides that “[a] contract, combination, or conspiracy between 2 or more persons in restraint of, or to monopolize, trade or commerce in a relevant market is unlawful.”
In re Cardizem CD Antitrust Litig., 200 F.R.D. 326 (E.D. Mich. 2001). “Thus, the focus here will be on indirect purchasers in Michigan who are seeking: (1) equitable relief in the nature of disgorgement of Defendants’ unjust enrichment; (2) treble damages, jointly and severally, for Defendants’ violations of §§ 445.772 1 and 445.773 2 of the…”
BPS Clinical Labs. v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield, 552 N.W.2d 919 (Mich. Ct. App. 1996). “*693 MCL 445.772; MSA 28.70(2). Defendant maintained that plaintiffs’ claims were preempted by the erisa.”
Certified Restoration Dry Cleaning Network, L.L.C. v. Tenke Corp., 511 F.3d 535 (6th Cir. 2007). “Reasonableness of the Non-Compete Covenant In addition to erroneously finding the non-compete clause ambiguous, the district court improperly concluded that there was insufficient evidence to de *546 termine whether Plaintiff would likely succeed in convincing the court that the…”
Rooyakker & Sitz, PLLC v. Plante & Moran, PLLC, 742 N.W.2d 409 (Mich. Ct. App. 2007). “VIOLATIONS OF THE MARA Plaintiffs allege that the agreement’s client solicitation clause is a noncompetition agreement that violates § 2 of the MARA, MCL 445.772, and, therefore, is unenforceable.”
In Re Packaged Ice Antitrust Litig., 779 F. Supp. 2d 642 (E.D. Mich. 2011). “Michigan The IP Plaintiffs allege that Defendants have violated the Michigan Antitrust Reform Act, Mich. Comp. Laws Ann. § 445.772 ("MARA").”
Blair v. Checker Cab Co., 558 N.W.2d 439 (Mich. Ct. App. 1997). “Plaintiff then filed a lawsuit against defendant, alleging: (1) the hearing she was provided was contrary to defendant’s constitution and bylaws and denied her due process; (2) the antitampering bylaw implemented an unconstitutional system of involuntary servitude; and (3) the…”
Bristol Window & Door, Inc. v. Hoogenstyn, 650 N.W.2d 670 (Mich. Ct. App. 2002). “772, which was derived from the Uniform State Antitrust Act, sets forth the following general proposition: “A contract, combination, or conspiracy between 2 or more persons in restraint of, or to monopolize, trade or commerce in a relevant market is unlawful.”
United States v. Microsoft Corp., 87 F. Supp. 2d 30 (D.D.C. 2000). “93A, § 2; Mich. Comp. Laws §§ 445.772 , 445.773; MinmStat.”
St Clair Med., PC v. Borgiel, 715 N.W.2d 914 (Mich. Ct. App. 2006). “” MCL 445.772. But, agreements not to compete are authorized by § 4a(l) of the MARA, MCL 445.”
In Re Potash Antitrust Litig., 667 F. Supp. 2d 907 (N.D. Ill. 2009). “See Mich. Comp. Laws Ann. § 445.772 (“A contract, combination, or conspiracy between 2 or more persons in restraint of, or to monopolize, trade or commerce in a relevant market is unlawful.”
Little Caesar Enter., Inc. v. Smith, 895 F. Supp. 884 (E.D. Mich. 1995). “Count III is an identical claim under MCLA § 445.772 of Michigan’s antitrust statute.”
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.