Michigan Compiled Laws

Mich. Comp. Laws § 445.910 (2026)

Class action by attorney general for actual damages; order; hearing; receiver; sequestration of assets; cost of notice; limitations.

✓ 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


445.910 Class action by attorney general for actual damages; order; hearing; receiver; sequestration of assets; cost of notice; limitations.

Sec. 10.

    (1) The attorney general may bring a class action on behalf of persons residing in or injured in this state for the actual damages caused by any of the following:

    (a) A method, act, or practice in trade or commerce defined as unlawful under section 3.

    (b) A method, act, or practice in trade or commerce declared to be unlawful under section 3 (1) by a final judgment of the circuit court or an appellate court of this state which is either reported officially or made available for public dissemination pursuant to section 9 by the attorney general not less than 30 days before the method, act, or practice on which the action is based occurs.

    (c) A method, act, or practice in trade or commerce declared by a circuit court of appeals or the supreme court of the United States to be an unfair or deceptive act or practice within the meaning of section 5(a)(1) of the federal trade commission act, 15 U.S.C. 45(a)(1), in a decision which affirms or directs the affirmance of a cease and desist order issued by the federal trade commission if the order is final within the meaning of section 5(g) of the federal trade commission act, 15 U.S.C. 45(g), and which is officially reported not less than 30 days before the method, act, or practice on which the action is based occurs. For purposes of this subdivision, a method, act, or practice shall not be deemed to be unfair or deceptive within the meaning of section 5(a)(1) of the federal trade commission act solely because the method, act, or practice is made unlawful by another federal statute that refers to or incorporates section 5(a)(1) of the federal trade commission act.

    (2) On motion of the attorney general and without bond in an action under this section the court may make an appropriate order: to reimburse persons who have suffered damages; to carry out a transaction in accordance with the aggrieved persons' reasonable expectations; to strike or limit the application of unconscionable clauses of contracts to avoid an unconscionable result; or to grant other appropriate relief. The court after a hearing may appoint a receiver or order sequestration of the defendant's assets if it appears to the satisfaction of the court that the defendant threatens or is about to remove, conceal, or dispose of his assets to the detriment of members of the class.

    (3) If at any stage of the proceedings the court requires that notice be sent to the class, the attorney general may petition the court to require the defendant to bear the cost of the notice. In determining whether to impose the cost on the defendant or the state, the court shall consider the probability that the attorney general will succeed on the merits of the action.

    (4) If the defendant shows by a preponderance of the evidence that a violation of this act resulted from a bona fide error notwithstanding the maintenance of procedures reasonably adapted to avoid the error, the amount of recovery shall be limited to actual damages.

    (5) An action shall not be brought by the attorney general under this section more than 6 years after the occurrence of the method, act, or practice which is the subject of the action nor more than 1 year after the last payment in a transaction involving the method, act, or practice which is the subject of the action, whichever period of time ends on a later date.

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

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 6 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1984–2025 · leading case: Dana Nessel v. AmeriGas Partners, 954 F.3d 831 (6th Cir. 2020).
Dana Nessel v. AmeriGas Partners, 954 F.3d 831 (6th Cir. 2020). · cites it 2× “The complaint states that the Attorney General is authorized to bring this suit on behalf of the Michigan residents affected by AmeriGas’s alleged unfair practices, in part, by Section 10 of the MCPA, codified at Mich. Comp. Laws § 445.910 . Section 10, titled “class actions by…”
Robertson v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 890 F. Supp. 671 (E.D. Mich. 1995). · cites it 2× “Mich.Comp.Laws § 445.910, and 445.915, respectively.”
Kelley v. Sclater (In Re Sclater), 40 B.R. 594 (Bankr. E.D. Mich. 1984). “§ 445.910. After the proofs were closed, the Attorney General filed a Motion to Amend the Complaint to Conform to the Evidence.”
Schuette v. Amerigas Partners, L.P. (E.D. Mich. 2019). · cites it 24× “201; see Mich. Comp. Laws 445.910. Plaintiff asserts that the “mere fact the MCPA uses the phrase ‘class action’ does not control the outcome of this analysis .”
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.”
Connecticut v. Aurobindo Pharma USA, Inc. (D. Conn. 2025). “” Mich. Comp. Laws § 445.910 (1). The Defendants argue that this provision does not apply “[b]ecause this is not a class action.”
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.