Michigan Compiled Laws
Mich. Comp. Laws § 484.2205 (2026)
Investigation and resolution of service complaints.
✓ laws through the 2026 session (checked Aug. 2026)
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
MI-LEGlegislature.mi.gov
JustiaChapter on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
MICHIGAN TELECOMMUNICATIONS ACT
Act 179 of 1991
484.2205 Investigation and resolution of service complaints.
Sec. 205.
The commission may investigate and resolve complaints under this act. The penalties under this act shall not be imposed for a violation that occurred more than 2 years before the date the complaint was filed.
History: 1991, Act 179, Eff. Jan. 1, 1992 ;-- Am. 1995, Act 216, Imd. Eff. Nov. 30, 1995 ;-- Am. 2005, Act 235, Imd. Eff. Nov. 22, 2005 ;-- Am. 2011, Act 58, Imd. Eff. June 14, 2011
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 7
cases, 1996–2007 · leading case: Ameritech Michigan v. PSC Michigan Pub. Serv. Comm'n, 658 N.W.2d 849 (Mich. Ct. App. 2003).
Ameritech Michigan v. PSC Michigan Pub. Serv. Comm'n, 658 N.W.2d 849 (Mich. Ct. App. 2003). “Pursuant to MCL 484.2205, the PSC has authority to investigate and resolve complaints and order changes if the quality, general availability, or conditions for the regulated service violate the act or an order of the commission, or are adverse to the public interest.”
Complaint of Rovas v. Ameritech Michigan, 740 N.W.2d 523 (Mich. Ct. App. 2007). “Notably, the PSC refers to MCL 484.2205(2) in support of its position.”
In re Complaint of Southfield Against Ameritech Michigan, 599 N.W.2d 760 (Mich. Ct. App. 1999). “] Subsection 205(1), MCL 484.2205(1); MSA 22.1469(205)(1), empowers the psc to “investigate and resolve complaints under this act.”
GTE North Inc. v. Pub. Serv. Comm'n, 544 N.W.2d 678 (Mich. Ct. App. 1996). “[MCL 484.2205; MSA 22.1469(205).] A contested case hearing was conducted before a hearing referee in late 1992.”
In re MCI Telecomm. Corp. Complaint, 612 N.W.2d 826 (Mich. Ct. App. 2000). “See generally 54A Am Jur 2d, Monopolies, Restraints of Trade and Unfair Trade Practices, § 1107 et seq.”
In re Sprint Commc'ns Co., 592 N.W.2d 825 (Mich. Ct. App. 1999). “[MCL 484.2205(2); MSA 22.1469(205)(2).] As a remedy, the MPSC ordered Ameritech to draft and mail a corrective bill insert (subject to premail review and approval by the MPSC) explaining to its customers the distinctions between the telecommunication services covered by the PIC…”
Ameritech Michigan v. Pub. Serv. Comm'n, 592 N.W.2d 825 (Mich. Ct. App. 1999). “[MCL 484.2205(2); MSA 22.1469(205)(2).] *33 As a remedy, the mpsc ordered Ameritech to draft and mail a corrective bill insert (subject to premail review and approval by the mpsc) explaining to its customers the distinctions between the telecommunication services covered by the…”
Mich. Comp. Laws § 484.2205(1): 1 case
In re Complaint of Southfield Against Ameritech Michigan, 599 N.W.2d 760 (Mich. Ct. App. 1999). “] Subsection 205(1), MCL 484.2205(1); MSA 22.1469(205)(1), empowers the psc to “investigate and resolve complaints under this act.”
Mich. Comp. Laws § 484.2205(2): 6 cases
Complaint of Rovas v. Ameritech Michigan, 740 N.W.2d 523 (Mich. Ct. App. 2007). “Notably, the PSC refers to MCL 484.2205(2) in support of its position.”
In re MCI Telecomm. Corp. Complaint, 612 N.W.2d 826 (Mich. Ct. App. 2000). “See generally 54A Am Jur 2d, Monopolies, Restraints of Trade and Unfair Trade Practices, § 1107 et seq.”
In re Complaint of Southfield Against Ameritech Michigan, 599 N.W.2d 760 (Mich. Ct. App. 1999). “] Subsection 205(1), MCL 484.2205(1); MSA 22.1469(205)(1), empowers the psc to “investigate and resolve complaints under this act.”
GTE North Inc. v. Pub. Serv. Comm'n, 544 N.W.2d 678 (Mich. Ct. App. 1996). “[MCL 484.2205; MSA 22.1469(205).] A contested case hearing was conducted before a hearing referee in late 1992.”
In re Sprint Commc'ns Co., 592 N.W.2d 825 (Mich. Ct. App. 1999). “[MCL 484.2205(2); MSA 22.1469(205)(2).] As a remedy, the MPSC ordered Ameritech to draft and mail a corrective bill insert (subject to premail review and approval by the MPSC) explaining to its customers the distinctions between the telecommunication services covered by the PIC…”
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.