Michigan Compiled Laws

Mich. Comp. Laws § 484.3305 (2026)

Renewal or extension of existing franchise agreement; unreasonable and unenforceable provisions; burdensome terms, conditions, or requirements.

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

UNIFORM VIDEO SERVICES LOCAL FRANCHISE ACT


Act 480 of 2006


484.3305 Renewal or extension of existing franchise agreement; unreasonable and unenforceable provisions; burdensome terms, conditions, or requirements.

Sec. 5.

    (1) As of the effective date of this act, no existing franchise agreement with a franchising entity shall be renewed or extended upon the expiration date of the agreement.

    (2) The incumbent video provider, at its option, may continue to provide video services to the franchising entity by electing to do 1 of the following:

    (a) Terminate the existing franchise agreement before the expiration date of the agreement and enter into a new franchise under a uniform video service local franchise agreement.

    (b) Continue under the existing franchise agreement amended to include only those provisions required under a uniform video service local franchise.

    (c) Continue to operate under the terms of an expired franchise until a uniform video service local franchise agreement takes effect. An incumbent video provider has 120 days after the effective date of this act to file for a uniform video service local franchise agreement.

    (3) On the effective date of this act, any provisions of an existing franchise that are inconsistent with or in addition to the provisions of a uniform video service local franchise agreement are unreasonable and unenforceable by the franchising entity.

    (4) If a franchising entity authorizes 2 or more video service providers through an existing franchise, a uniform video service local franchise agreement, or an agreement under section 13, the franchising entity shall not enforce any term, condition, or requirement of any franchise agreement that is more burdensome than the terms, conditions, or requirements contained in another franchise agreement.

History: 2006, Act 480, Eff. Jan. 1, 2007

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 3 cases, 2008–2012 · leading case: City of Detroit v. Comcast of Detroit, Inc., 771 F. Supp. 2d 781 (E.D. Mich. 2011).
City of Detroit v. Comcast of Detroit, Inc., 771 F. Supp. 2d 781 (E.D. Mich. 2011). · cites it 2× “Mich. Comp. Laws § 484.3303 (8); see also Mich.”
City of Dearborn v. Comcast of Michigan, 558 F. Supp. 2d 750 (E.D. Mich. 2008). “§ 484.3305(2)). Plaintiffs respond that Michigan law is preempted by the Cable Act.”
City of Detroit v. Michigan, 879 F. Supp. 2d 680 (E.D. Mich. 2012). · cites it 8× “” Mich. Comp. Laws § 484.3305 (3), (1). Instead, the Act establishes three ways to create a valid Uniform Franchise: terminate the existing agreement and enter into a Uniform Agreement before the expiration date; amend the existing franchise agreement to include only the…”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 484.3305(2) — 1 case
City of Dearborn v. Comcast of Michigan, 558 F. Supp. 2d 750 (E.D. Mich. 2008). “§ 484.3305(2)). Plaintiffs respond that Michigan law is preempted by the Cable Act.”
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.