Mich. Comp. Laws » Michigan Compiled Laws / Chapter 445 / Act 331 of 1976
Michigan Compiled Laws

Mich. Comp. Laws § 445.901 (2026)

Short title.

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

MICHIGAN CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT


Act 331 of 1976


445.901 Short title.

Sec. 1.

    This act shall be known and may be cited as the "Michigan consumer protection act".

History: 1976, Act 331, Eff. Apr. 1, 1977

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 370 cases (72 in the last 5 years), 1977–2026 · leading case: Liss v. Lewiston-Richards, Inc, 732 N.W.2d 514 (Mich. 2007).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Liss v. Lewiston-Richards, Inc, 732 N.W.2d 514 (Mich. 2007). · cites it 6× “2d 28 , the test adopted in Smith is so broad that it precludes many permissible claims under the Michigan Consumer Protection Act, MCL 445.901 et seq. Moreover, not only was Smith wrongly decided, the Smith decision defies practical workability *522 because it disallows…”
Woodman v. KERA, LLC, 760 N.W.2d 641 (Mich. Ct. App. 2008). · cites it 6× “LOWER-COURT PROCEDURAL HISTORY Plaintiff, through his mother and next friend, filed a three-count complaint against defendant, alleging gross negligence, negligence, and violation of Michigan's Consumer Protection Act (MCPA), MCL 445.901 et seq. Plaintiff alleged that defendant…”
Attorney Gen. v. Powerpick Player's Club of Michigan, LLC, 783 N.W.2d 515 (Mich. Ct. App. 2010). · cites it 4× “The Attorney General also alleged that PowerPick's operations violated the Michigan Consumer Protection Act (MCPA), MCL 445.901 et seq. A Contrary to the ruling of the circuit court, the material facts of this case are beyond serious dispute.”
Beattie v. CenturyTel, Inc., 511 F.3d 554 (6th Cir. 2007). · cites it 2× “, and the Michigan Consumer Protection Act, Mich. Comp. Laws § 445.901 et seq. Plaintiffs-Appellees moved the district court for class certification and for judgment on the pleadings on Count I of the Complaint, which alleged that Centu-ryTel engaged in unjust and unreasonable…”
Dressel v. Ameribank, 664 N.W.2d 151 (Mich. 2003). · cites it 2× “§ 445.901 et seq. In March of 1999, the case was certified as a class action to provide potential relief for other borrowers who also had been charged a document preparation fee by lending institutions.”
Trentadue v. Buckler Automatic Lawn Sprinkler Co., 479 Mich. 378 (Mich. 2007). · cites it 2× “This consideration involves a review of whether the decision “defies ‘practical workability,’ whether reliance interests would work an undue hardship, and whether changes in the law or facts no longer justify the questioned decision.”
Slobin v. Henry Ford Health Care, 666 N.W.2d 632 (Mich. 2003). · cites it 4× “§ 445.901 et seq., the second by theory of civil conspiracy under the MCPA.”
Jennifer Beardsall v. CVS Pharmacy, Inc., 953 F.3d 969 (7th Cir. 2020). “(against Fruit of the Earth, CVS, Walgreens, and Walmart); Count VI: Michigan Consumer Protection Act, Mich. Comp. Laws § 445.901 et seq. (against Fruit of the Earth and CVS); Count VII: Missouri Merchandising Practices Act, Mo.”
Dana Nessel v. AmeriGas Partners, 954 F.3d 831 (6th Cir. 2020). · cites it 2× “This appeal presents the question of whether a representative action brought by the Michigan Attorney General pursuant to the Michigan Consumer Protection Act, Mich. Comp. Laws § 445.901 et seq., is a removable “class action” under the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005, Pub.”
Woodman v. Kera LLC, 785 N.W.2d 1 (Mich. 2010). · cites it 2× “[5] MCL 445.901 et seq. [6] Ironically, the question whether the waiver at issue here actually bound the child was raised by members of this Court at oral argument, as the challenged waiver appears to bind only the "undersigned," who is Mr.”
Cowles v. Bank West, 719 N.W.2d 94 (Mich. 2006). · cites it 2× “Further, the complaint alleged that the document preparation fee violated certain provisions of the Michigan Consumer Protection Act (MCPA), MCL 445.901 et seq. Additionally, the class-action complaint asserted claims of replevin, unjust enrichment, innocent misrepresentation,…”
In Re New Motor Vehs. Canadian Exp. Antitrust Litig., 350 F. Supp. 2d 160 (D. Me. 2004). · cites it 2× “The MICPA does not contain a harmonization provision, see Mich. Comp. Laws §§ 445.901 -.921, and is not modeled directly on the FTC Act, compare Mich.”
Show all 370 citing cases →
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 445.901(1)(bb) — 1 case
Washtenaw Cnty. Prosecutor v. Valleytree Partners LLC (Mich. Ct. App. 2026).
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 445.901(1)(c) — 1 case
Washtenaw Cnty. Prosecutor v. Valleytree Partners LLC (Mich. Ct. App. 2026).
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 445.901(1)(n) — 1 case
Travelers Indem. Co. v. Barbara Pellow (Mich. Ct. App. 2016).
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 445.901(1)(t) — 2 cases
Yvette M Cormier v. Pf Fitness-Midland LLC (Mich. Ct. App. 2018).
Yvette M Cormier v. Pf Fitness-Midland LLC (Mich. Ct. App. 2018).
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 445.901(4) — 1 case
Droesser v. Ford Motor Co. (E.D. Mich. 2023).
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.