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

Mich. Comp. Laws § 445.778 (2026)

Action by state, political subdivision, public agency, or other person for injunctive or other equitable relief, actual damages, interest, costs and attorney's fees; effect of flagrant violation.

✓ 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


445.778 Action by state, political subdivision, public agency, or other person for injunctive or other equitable relief, actual damages, interest, costs and attorney's fees; effect of flagrant violation.

Sec. 8.

    (1) The state, a political subdivision, or any public agency threatened with injury or injured directly or indirectly in its business or property by a violation of this act may bring an action for appropriate injunctive or other equitable relief, actual damages sustained by reason of a violation of this act, and, as determined by the court, interest on the damages from the date of the complaint, taxable costs, and reasonable attorney's fees.

    (2) Any other person threatened with injury or injured directly or indirectly in his or her business or property by a violation of this act may bring an action for appropriate injunctive or other equitable relief against immediate irreparable harm, actual damages sustained by reason of a violation of this act, and, as determined by the court, interest on the damages from the date of the complaint, taxable costs, and reasonable attorney's fees. If the trier of fact finds that the violation is flagrant, it may increase recovery to an amount not in excess of 3 times the actual damages sustained by reason of a violation of this act.

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

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 28 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1989–2022 · leading case: Bunker's Glass Co. v. PILKINGTON, PLC, 75 P.3d 99 (Ariz. 2003).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Bunker's Glass Co. v. PILKINGTON, PLC, 75 P.3d 99 (Ariz. 2003). · cites it 8× “Mich. Comp. Laws § 445.778 (2) (2001); N.”
A & M SUPPLY CO. v. Microsoft Corp., 654 N.W.2d 572 (Mich. Ct. App. 2002). · cites it 4× “779] other than a consent judgment or decree entered before any testimony has been taken, is prima facie evidence against the person in any other action against the person under section 8 [MCL 445.778] as to all matters with respect to which the judgment or decree would be an…”
In re Cardizem CD Antitrust Litig., 200 F.R.D. 326 (E.D. Mich. 2001). · cites it 3× “§ 445.778(2) permits indirect purchaser actions brought by persons alleging violations of §§ 445.”
In re Cardizem CD Antitrust Litig., 218 F.R.D. 508 (E.D. Mich. 2003). · cites it 2× “, Mich. Comp. Laws Ann. § 445.778 (1). Fourth, the Court considers “society’s stake in rewarding attorneys who produce such benefits in order to maintain an incentive to others.”
In re Relafen Antitrust Litig., 221 F.R.D. 260 (D. Mass. 2004). · cites it 2× “2d 303 ; Mich. Comp. Laws Ann. § 445.778 (2); Minn.”
Comes v. Microsoft Corp., 646 N.W.2d 440 (Iowa 2002). · cites it 2× “Law I § 11-209(b)(2)(ii) (enacted in 1982); Mich. Comp. Laws Ann. § 445.778 (2) (enacted in 1984); Minn.”
Freeman Indus., LLC v. Eastman Chem. Co., 172 S.W.3d 512 (Tenn. 2005). “10, § 1104 (2004); Mich. Comp. Laws § 445.778 (1985); Minn.Stat.”
Johnson v. Microsoft Corp., 106 Ohio St. 3d 278 (Ohio 2005). “M.StatAnn. 57-l-3(A); New York, N.Y.Gen.Bus.”
Lowe v. Bowers (In Re Nicole Gas Prod., Ltd.), 916 F.3d 566 (6th Cir. 2019). “One of the claims was styled under the Michigan Antitrust Reform Act, Mich. Comp. Laws § 445.778 (2), which allows "any other person .”
Sullivan v. DB Investments, Inc., 613 F.3d 134 (3rd Cir. 2010). · cites it 3× “Code § 16750 (a); Mich. Comp. Laws § 445.778 (2); N.Y. Gen.”
California v. ARC Am. Corp., 490 U.S. 93 (1989). “§ 11-209 (1983); Mich. Comp. Laws Ann. § 445.778 (West Supp.”
Fed. Trade Comm'n v. Mylan Labs., Inc., 62 F. Supp. 2d 25 (D.D.C. 1999). · cites it 2× “” Mich. Comp. Laws 445.778(1), 445.778(2). Thus, remaining claims include civil penalties, damages on behalf of both the State and indirect purchasers, injunctive relief, restitution and disgorgement on behalf of both direct and indirect purchasers, and attorney fees and costs.”
Show all 28 citing cases →
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 445.778(1) — 1 case
Fed. Trade Comm'n v. Mylan Labs., Inc., 62 F. Supp. 2d 25 (D.D.C. 1999). “” Mich. Comp. Laws 445.778(1), 445.778(2). Thus, remaining claims include civil penalties, damages on behalf of both the State and indirect purchasers, injunctive relief, restitution and disgorgement on behalf of both direct and indirect purchasers, and attorney fees and costs.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 445.778(2) — 8 cases
In re Cardizem CD Antitrust Litig., 200 F.R.D. 326 (E.D. Mich. 2001). “§ 445.778(2) permits indirect purchaser actions brought by persons alleging violations of §§ 445.”
A & M SUPPLY CO. v. Microsoft Corp., 654 N.W.2d 572 (Mich. Ct. App. 2002). “779] other than a consent judgment or decree entered before any testimony has been taken, is prima facie evidence against the person in any other action against the person under section 8 [MCL 445.778] as to all matters with respect to which the judgment or decree would be an…”
Johnson v. Microsoft Corp., 106 Ohio St. 3d 278 (Ohio 2005). “M.StatAnn. 57-l-3(A); New York, N.Y.Gen.Bus.”
Fed. Trade Comm'n v. Mylan Labs., Inc., 62 F. Supp. 2d 25 (D.D.C. 1999). “” Mich. Comp. Laws 445.778(1), 445.778(2). Thus, remaining claims include civil penalties, damages on behalf of both the State and indirect purchasers, injunctive relief, restitution and disgorgement on behalf of both direct and indirect purchasers, and attorney fees and costs.”
Johnson v. Microsoft Corp., 802 N.E.2d 712 (Ohio Ct. App. 2003).
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.