Advocacy News – Nov. 6, 2025
What happened: The Michigan Supreme Court heard oral arguments Wednesday in a case that could reshape how the state’s consumer protection law applies to regulated businesses and professions.
Why it matters: The case, Attorney General v. Eli Lilly and Company, challenges the “regulatory compliance exemption” under the Michigan Consumer Protection Act (MCPA). Attorney General Dana Nessel wants the Court to overturn two prior rulings — Smith (1999) and Liss (2007) — that have stood for more than two decades. If overturned, over 80 regulated industries and professions could face new litigation risks, from duplicate enforcement and inconsistent rulings to class actions, treble damages and costly legal exposure.
Background: The 1976 MCPA bans unfair, unconscionable or deceptive business practices and allows investigations and lawsuits by the Attorney General, prosecutors, and consumers. But it exempts transactions or conduct “specifically authorized” by other state or federal regulatory bodies. In prior rulings, the Court interpreted this exemption broadly to so prevent duplicative regulation and frivolous lawsuits, saying:
- If a business or professional activity falls within the scope of a valid license, it’s exempt from MCPA suits.
- Conduct outside that scope can still trigger MCPA claims.
What we’re saying: The Michigan Chamber has been actively engaged in this case in the courts, defending current law. Read our latest brief, which we coordinated with 14 other business and trade associations.
What’s at stake: A reversal would expose virtually every regulated profession to new lawsuits under the MCPA — even when they already comply with existing oversight. Businesses and professions that would face new litigation exposure under an adverse Court decision include: • Hospitals • Real estate agents, appraisers and brokers and mortgage lenders • Banks • Accountants • Insurance Agents and insurers (limited impact) • Builders and contractors • Auto dealers and manufacturers and repair shops • Utilities • Medical personnel, including pharmacists, physicians, nurses, dentists, and more • Engineers and architects • Plumbers • Funeral homes • Investment advisors • Manufacturers • Telecoms • Casinos • Cosmetic retailers • Veterinarians and animal care providers • Local governments (relative to the services they offer) • Railroads and airlines • and more.
The bottom line: If the Court sides with Nessel, every state-regulated business could face lawsuits under the MCPA. If it upholds precedent, the current protections for regulated industries stay intact. There is no deadline for the Court to issue its opinion, but their current term will conclude in late June or early July 2026, when the last opinions are released.
For questions or more information, contact info@michamber.com.