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

Mich. Comp. Laws § 445.773 (2026)

Unlawful monopoly.

✓ 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


445.773 Unlawful monopoly.

Sec. 3.

    The establishment, maintenance, or use of a monopoly, or any attempt to establish a monopoly, of trade or commerce in a relevant market by any person, for the purpose of excluding or limiting competition or controlling, fixing, or maintaining prices, is unlawful.

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

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 17 cases (6 in the last 5 years), 1994–2024 · leading case: ETT Ambulance Serv. Corp. v. Rockford Ambulance, Inc., 516 N.W.2d 498 (Mich. Ct. App. 1994).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
ETT Ambulance Serv. Corp. v. Rockford Ambulance, Inc., 516 N.W.2d 498 (Mich. Ct. App. 1994). · cites it 3× “Specifically, *395 plaintiff claimed that defendant is engaging in predatory pricing and is attempting to establish an ambulance service monopoly in Ionia County for the purpose of excluding or limiting competition or controlling, fixing, or maintaining prices in violation of…”
In re Lamictal Indirect Purchaser & Antitrust Consum. Litig., 172 F. Supp. 3d 724 (D.N.J. 2016). · cites it 2× “¶¶ 171-80; and 2) Defendant GSK “unlawfully restrained and monopolized trade and attempted to monopolize trade for the purpose of excluding or limiting competition or controlling, fixing, or maintaining prices in the market for Lamictal Tablets,” in violation of Mich. Comp. Laws…”
United States v. Microsoft Corp., 87 F. Supp. 2d 30 (D.D.C. 2000). · cites it 2× “93A, § 2; Mich. Comp. Laws § 445.773 (1989); Minn.Stat.”
Sheet Metal Workers Local 441 Health & Welfare Plan v. Glaxosmithkline, PLC, 737 F. Supp. 2d 380 (E.D. Pa. 2010). “” Mich. Comp. Laws § 445.773 . “ ‘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.”
In Re Potash Antitrust Litig., 667 F. Supp. 2d 907 (N.D. Ill. 2009). “See Mich. Comp. Laws Ann. § 445.773 . Considering the crux of the Indirect Complaint involves allegations of an illicit agreement to fix potash prices, the Court will use Section 445.”
In re Cardizem CD Antitrust Litig., 200 F.R.D. 326 (E.D. Mich. 2001). “§ 445.773 provides that: "[t]he establishment, maintenance, or use of a monopoly, or any attempt to establish a monopoly, of trade or commerce in a relevant market by any person, for the purpose of excluding or limiting competition or controlling, fixing, or maintaining prices,…”
A & M SUPPLY CO. v. Microsoft Corp., 654 N.W.2d 572 (Mich. Ct. App. 2002). “9 MCL 445.773. 10 MCL 445.772. 11 Zine v Chrysler Corp, 236 Mich App 261, 270 ; 600 NW2d 384 (1999).”
Nathan Murphy-Dubay v. Dept of Licensing & Regulatory Affairs, 876 N.W.2d 598 (Mich. Ct. App. 2015). “[MCL 445.773.] The act contains an exemption for state agencies and boards: This act shall not apply to a transaction or conduct specifically authorized under the laws of this state or the *556 United States, or specifically authorized under laws, rules, regulations, or orders…”
Miranda v. Michigan, 141 F. Supp. 2d 747 (E.D. Mich. 2001). “§ 445.773. Defendants, however, assert that they are exempt from liability under the gov- *756 eminent exception to Michigan’s Antitrust Reform Act, which states: This act shall not be construed to prohibit, invalidate, or make unlawful any act or conduct of any unit of…”
Rads, P.C. v. Mercy Mem'l Hosp., 3 F. Supp. 2d 772 (E.D. Mich. 1998). “As previously noted, in the Monroe County Circuit Court, RADS based its counterclaim on theories of breach of contract; tortious interference with a business relationship; and antitrust violations, including monopolization in violation of M.”
Heritage Guitar, Inc. v. Gibson Brands, Inc. (W.D. Mich. 2021). · cites it 4× “§ 2 ; (3) monopolization in violation of Mich. Comp. Laws § 445.773 ; and (4) attempted monopolization in violation of Mich.”
Heritage Guitar, Inc. v. Gibson Brands, Inc. (W.D. Mich. 2022). · cites it 4× “§ 2 ; (3) monopolization in violation of Mich. Comp. Laws § 445.773 ; and (4) attempted monopolization in violation of Mich.”
Show all 17 citing cases →
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.