MICHIGAN ANTITRUST REFORM ACT
Act 274 of 1984
445.774 Labor as commodity or article of commerce; organizations for mutual help; acts or conduct of governmental unit; authorized transactions or conduct; unlawful transactions or conduct subject to regulatory scheme; transactions or conduct reducing cost of health care; enforcement of federal antitrust act.
Sec. 4.
(1) Labor of a human being is not a commodity or an article of commerce.
(2) This act shall not be construed to forbid the existence and operation of any labor, agricultural, or horticultural organization instituted for the purpose of mutual help, while lawfully carrying out its legitimate objects.
(3) This act shall not be construed to prohibit, invalidate, or make unlawful any act or conduct of any unit of government, when the unit of government is acting in a subject matter area in which it is authorized by law to act, except for purposes of conducting an investigation and the obtaining of appropriate injunctive or other equitable relief, other than civil penalties, pursuant to section 7.
(4) This act shall not apply to a transaction or conduct specifically authorized under the laws of this state or the United States, or specifically authorized under laws, rules, regulations, or orders administered, promulgated, or issued by a regulatory agency, board, or officer acting under statutory authority of this state or the United States.
(5) A transaction or conduct made unlawful by this act shall not be construed to violate this act where it is the subject of a legislatively mandated pervasive regulatory scheme, including but not limited to, the insurance code of 1956, being sections 500.100 to 500.8302 of the Michigan Compiled Laws, which confers exclusive jurisdiction on a regulatory board or officer to authorize, prohibit or regulate the transaction or conduct.
(6) This act shall not apply to a transaction or conduct of an authorized health maintenance corporation, health insurer, medical care corporation, or health service corporation or health care corporation when the transaction or conduct is to reduce the cost of health care and is permitted by the commissioner. This subsection shall not affect the enforcement of the federal antitrust act by federal courts or federal agencies.
History: 1984, Act 274, Eff. Mar. 29, 1985
Notes of Decisions
Bio-Magnetic Resonance, Inc v. Dep't of Pub. Health, 593 N.W.2d 641 (Mich. Ct. App. 1999).
· cites it 4× “The Court of Claims granted summary disposition in favor of defendants, concluding that defendants’ actions were authorized by the Public Health Code and that defendants were exempted from the state antitrust laws under MCL 445.”
BPS Clinical Labs. v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield, 552 N.W.2d 919 (Mich. Ct. App. 1996).
· cites it 2× “Subsection 4(4) of the Antitrust Reform Act, MCL 445.774(4); MSA 28.70(4)(4), states: This act shall not apply to a transaction or conduct specifically authorized under the laws of this state or the United States, or specifically authorized under laws, rules, regulations, or…”
Innovation Ventures, LLC. v. Custom Nutrition Labs., LLC., 256 F. Supp. 3d 696 (E.D. Mich. 2017).
· cites it 4× “As the Court has noted previously, a broad and- unqualified reference to the phrase “illegal restraint on trade” could be understood to raise claims of illegality under the federal Sherman and Clayton Antitrust Acts, Mich. Comp. Laws § 445.772 , or Mich. Comp.”
Nathan Murphy-Dubay v. Dept of Licensing & Regulatory Affairs, 876 N.W.2d 598 (Mich. Ct. App. 2015).
· cites it 2× “[MCL 445.774(4).] Plaintiffs argument fails because the challenged anticompetitive conduct he complains of (requiring the completion of two years of postgraduate clinical training in a program approved by the ACGME before a license may be issued) is undertaken pursuant to a…”
United States v. Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan, 809 F. Supp. 2d 665 (E.D. Mich. 2011).
· cites it 4× “There are exemptions: This act shall not apply to a transaction or conduct of an authorized health maintenance corporation, health insurer, medical care corporation, or health service corporation or health care corporation when the transaction or conduct is to reduce the cost of…”
Miranda v. Michigan, 168 F. Supp. 2d 685 (E.D. Mich. 2001).
· cites it 2× “Mich. Comp. Laws § 445.774 (3). As discussed supra, the DOC is expressly authorized by law to promulgate rules regarding the management and control of state penal institutions.”
Miranda v. Michigan, 141 F. Supp. 2d 747 (E.D. Mich. 2001).
· cites it 2× “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 government, when…”
BPS Clinical Labs. v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield, 522 N.W.2d 902 (Mich. Ct. App. 1994).
· cites it 2× “…for sending patient specimens to specified laboratories. [2] Section 514(b)(2)(B), 29 USC 1144(b)(2)(B). [3] MCL 445.774; MSA 28.70(4).”
Sarin v. Samaritan Health Ctr., 813 F.2d 755 (6th Cir. 1987).
“Mich.Comp.Laws Ann. § 445.774(4). Under Michigan law, hospitals are required to maintain a peer review system.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 445.774(3) — 2 cases
Bio-Magnetic Resonance, Inc v. Dep't of Pub. Health, 593 N.W.2d 641 (Mich. Ct. App. 1999).
“The Court of Claims granted summary disposition in favor of defendants, concluding that defendants’ actions were authorized by the Public Health Code and that defendants were exempted from the state antitrust laws under MCL 445.”
Miranda v. Michigan, 141 F. Supp. 2d 747 (E.D. Mich. 2001).
“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 government, when…”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 445.774(4) — 4 cases
BPS Clinical Labs. v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield, 552 N.W.2d 919 (Mich. Ct. App. 1996).
“Subsection 4(4) of the Antitrust Reform Act, MCL 445.774(4); MSA 28.70(4)(4), states: This act shall not apply to a transaction or conduct specifically authorized under the laws of this state or the United States, or specifically authorized under laws, rules, regulations, or…”
Nathan Murphy-Dubay v. Dept of Licensing & Regulatory Affairs, 876 N.W.2d 598 (Mich. Ct. App. 2015).
“[MCL 445.774(4).] Plaintiffs argument fails because the challenged anticompetitive conduct he complains of (requiring the completion of two years of postgraduate clinical training in a program approved by the ACGME before a license may be issued) is undertaken pursuant to a…”
Sarin v. Samaritan Health Ctr., 813 F.2d 755 (6th Cir. 1987).
“Mich.Comp.Laws Ann. § 445.774(4). Under Michigan law, hospitals are required to maintain a peer review system.”
United States v. Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan, 809 F. Supp. 2d 665 (E.D. Mich. 2011).
“There are exemptions: This act shall not apply to a transaction or conduct of an authorized health maintenance corporation, health insurer, medical care corporation, or health service corporation or health care corporation when the transaction or conduct is to reduce the cost of…”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 445.774(6) — 2 cases
BPS Clinical Labs. v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield, 552 N.W.2d 919 (Mich. Ct. App. 1996).
“Subsection 4(4) of the Antitrust Reform Act, MCL 445.774(4); MSA 28.70(4)(4), states: This act shall not apply to a transaction or conduct specifically authorized under the laws of this state or the United States, or specifically authorized under laws, rules, regulations, or…”
United States v. Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan, 809 F. Supp. 2d 665 (E.D. Mich. 2011).
“There are exemptions: This act shall not apply to a transaction or conduct of an authorized health maintenance corporation, health insurer, medical care corporation, or health service corporation or health care corporation when the transaction or conduct is to reduce the cost of…”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 445.774(a)(1) — 2 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.