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

Mich. Comp. Laws § 445.905 (2026)

Action to restrain defendant by temporary or permanent injunction; venue; costs; civil penalty; notice to defendant; notice to attorney general; violation of injunction, order, decree, or judgment; civil fine; retention of jurisdiction, continuation of cause, and petition for recovery of civil fine.

✓ 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


445.905 Action to restrain defendant by temporary or permanent injunction; venue; costs; civil penalty; notice to defendant; notice to attorney general; violation of injunction, order, decree, or judgment; civil fine; retention of jurisdiction, continuation of cause, and petition for recovery of civil fine.

Sec. 5.

    (1) If the attorney general has probable cause to believe that a person has engaged, is engaging, or is about to engage in a method, act, or practice that is unlawful under section 3, and gives notice pursuant to this section, the attorney general may bring an action in accordance with principles of equity to restrain the defendant by temporary or permanent injunction from engaging in the method, act, or practice. The action may be brought in the circuit court of the county where the defendant is established or conducts business or, if the defendant is not established in this state, in the circuit court of Ingham County. The court may award costs to the prevailing party. Except as otherwise provided in this section, for persistent and knowing violation of section 3 the court may assess the defendant a civil fine of not more than $25,000.00. For a violation of section 3(1)(kk), each performance or production is a separate violation. For a violation of section 3l, the court may assess the defendant a civil fine of not more than $1,000.00 per violation. Each day a violation of section 3l occurs counts as a separate violation.

    (2) Unless waived by the court on good cause shown not less than 10 days before the commencement of an action under this section, the attorney general shall notify the person of his or her intended action and give the person an opportunity to cease and desist from the alleged unlawful method, act, or practice or to confer with the attorney general in person, by counsel, or by other representative as to the proposed action before the proposed filing date. The notice may be given to the person by mail, postage prepaid, to his or her usual place of business or, if the person does not have a usual place of business, to his or her last known address, or, if the person is a corporation, only to a resident agent who is designated to receive service of process or to an officer of the corporation.

    (3) A prosecuting attorney or law enforcement officer receiving notice of an alleged violation of this act, or of a violation of an injunction, order, decree, or judgment issued in an action brought pursuant to this section, or of an assurance under this act, shall immediately forward written notice of the violation together with any information he or she may have to the office of the attorney general.

    (4) A person who knowingly violates the terms of an injunction, order, decree, or judgment issued under this section shall forfeit and pay to the state a civil fine of not more than $5,000.00 for each violation. For the purposes of this section, the court issuing an injunction, order, decree, or judgment shall retain jurisdiction, the cause shall be continued, and the attorney general may petition for recovery of a civil fine as provided by this section.

    

    

History: 1976, Act 331, Eff. Apr. 1, 1977 ;-- Am. 2006, Act 508, Imd. Eff. Dec. 29, 2006 ;-- Am. 2020, Act 296, Eff. April 1, 2021

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 12 cases (4 in the last 5 years), 1980–2024 · leading case: Attorney Gen. v. Diamond Mortg. Co., 327 N.W.2d 805 (Mich. 1982).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Attorney Gen. v. Diamond Mortg. Co., 327 N.W.2d 805 (Mich. 1982). · cites it 7× “, because of their license to engage in the real estate brokerage business? Third, is § 5(1) of the Michigan Consumer Protection Act, MCL 445.905; MSA 19.418(5), a jurisdictional, as opposed to a venue, provision? Fourth, is an action in quo warranto inappropriate against a…”
Attorney Gen. v. Powerpick Player's Club of Michigan, LLC, 783 N.W.2d 515 (Mich. Ct. App. 2010). · cites it 4× “V We have concluded that PowerPick's operations and office constitute an enjoinable nuisance and that PowerPick failed to plead and assert any valid affirmative defenses.”
Ammex, Inc., Plaintiff-Appellant/cross-Appellee v. Michael A. Cox, Defendant-Appellee/cross-Appellant, 351 F.3d 697 (6th Cir. 2003). “Mich. Comp. Laws § 445.905 (2). 2 . The complaint also included a fourth count that asked the district court to enjoin aspects of Michigan's sales tax act.”
Robertson v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 890 F. Supp. 671 (E.D. Mich. 1995). · cites it 2× “, Mich.Comp.Laws § 445.905(l)-(4). 17 . Plaintiffs have separate policies.”
Hartman & Eichhorn Bldg. Co., Inc. v. Dailey, 701 N.W.2d 749 (Mich. Ct. App. 2005). · cites it 2× “" For example, MCL 445.905 authorizes the attorney general to seek a restraining order against "a person" who is violating MCL 445.”
Attorney Gen. v. Diamond Mortg. Corp, 301 N.W.2d 523 (Mich. Ct. App. 1980). “Plaintiff further claims that said conduct is in violation of the Michigan Consumer Protection Act (CPA), MCL 445.905; MSA 19.418(5). Plaintiff asked the circuit court to find the defendants guilty of improper corporate activities and misuse of its corporate charter.”
Smith v. Globe Life Ins., 565 N.W.2d 877 (Mich. Ct. App. 1997). “In those areas regulated by governmental agencies, however, claims by individuals for money damages provide a form of relief that cannot be achieved by the Attorney General, who could only seek injunctive relief under § 5 of the MCPA, MCL 445.”
Nessel v. Vokel Cellars, Inc. d/b/a Vokel Cellars (E.D. Mich. 2022). · cites it 6× “Mich. Comp. Laws § 445.905 (1), (3). Here, Nessel sent Vokel Cellars a cease-and-desist letter.”
Schuette v. Amerigas Partners, L.P. (E.D. Mich. 2019). · cites it 3× “The Complaint states: The Attorney General is authorized to bring this action under MCL 445.905 and MCL 445.910. The Attorney General may obtain injunctive relief, actual damages, and other appropriate relief under the Michigan Consumer Protection Act (MCPA), MCL 445.”
Nessel v. Bolo Cellars, LLC (E.D. Mich. 2024). · cites it 2× “LAWS § 445.905(1), (3)). The MCPA also authorizes courts in such actions to “assess the defendant a civil fine of not more than $25,000.”
Oraha v. Troy Motors Inc (Mich. Ct. App. 2022). “MCL 445.905(1); MCL 445.914; MCL 445.915.”
Bakshi v. Avis Budget Grp., Inc. (E.D. Mich. 2022). “Laws § 445.905 (1). b. California Unfair Competition Law Claims The plaintiff’s potential recovery under the California Unfair Competition Law (CUCL) similarly is limited.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 445.905(1) — 4 cases
Attorney Gen. v. Diamond Mortg. Co., 327 N.W.2d 805 (Mich. 1982). “, because of their license to engage in the real estate brokerage business? Third, is § 5(1) of the Michigan Consumer Protection Act, MCL 445.905; MSA 19.418(5), a jurisdictional, as opposed to a venue, provision? Fourth, is an action in quo warranto inappropriate against a…”
Attorney Gen. v. Powerpick Player's Club of Michigan, LLC, 783 N.W.2d 515 (Mich. Ct. App. 2010). “V We have concluded that PowerPick's operations and office constitute an enjoinable nuisance and that PowerPick failed to plead and assert any valid affirmative defenses.”
Nessel v. Bolo Cellars, LLC (E.D. Mich. 2024). “LAWS § 445.905(1), (3)). The MCPA also authorizes courts in such actions to “assess the defendant a civil fine of not more than $25,000.”
Oraha v. Troy Motors Inc (Mich. Ct. App. 2022). “MCL 445.905(1); MCL 445.914; MCL 445.915.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 445.905(4) — 1 case
Attorney Gen. v. Powerpick Player's Club of Michigan, LLC, 783 N.W.2d 515 (Mich. Ct. App. 2010). “V We have concluded that PowerPick's operations and office constitute an enjoinable nuisance and that PowerPick failed to plead and assert any valid affirmative defenses.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 445.905(l) — 1 case
Robertson v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 890 F. Supp. 671 (E.D. Mich. 1995). “, Mich.Comp.Laws § 445.905(l)-(4). 17 . Plaintiffs have separate policies.”
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.