Michigan

• Pages: 299-307

299

CHAPTER 24

MICHIGAN

A. Scope of the Statute and Elements of a Cause of Action

The Michigan Consumer Protection Act (MCPA)1 prohibits “unfair,

unconscionable, or deceptive methods, acts, or practices in the conduct of

trade or commerce.”2 While the MCPA provides no specific definition of

“unfair, unconscionable, or deceptive” conduct, the statute lists more than

thirty different methods, acts, or practices that fall under the prohibited

category.3 Under the statute, “trade or commerce” means “the conduct of

a business providing goods, property, or service primarily for personal,

family, or household purposes” in Michigan.4 The general trade or

commerce requirement may be satisfied even in the absence of a specific

transaction between the parties involving the purchase of consumer goods;

however, as noted below, some enumerated acts or practices required a

specific transaction between the parties.5

As noted above, more than thirty enumerated methods, acts, or

practices constitute unfair, unconscionable, or deceptive conduct under the

MCPA.6 Michigan courts have not distinguished between unfair,

unconscionable, and deceptive methods, acts, and practices; instead,

conduct that violates the MCPA falls within the broad category of “unfair,

unconscionable, or deceptive methods, acts, or practices” as a whole.7

1. MICH. COMP. LAWS §§ 445.901 through 445.922.

2. Id. § 445.903.

3. Id. § 445.903(1)(a)–(1)(kk).

4. Id. § 445.902(g). This definition specifically “includes the advertising,

solicitation, offering for sale or rent, sale, l ease, or distribution of a service

or property, tangible or intangible, real, personal, or mixed, or any other

article, or a business opportunity.” Id. “Trade or commerce” does not

include the purchase or sale of a franchise, but does include a pyramid

promotional scheme. Id.

5. DirecTV, Inc. v. Cavanaugh, 321 F. Supp. 2d 825, 838 (E.D. Mich.

2003) (holding signal piracy may constitute “trade and commerce” under

the MCPA even though goods were being stolen instead of purchased);

Action Auto Glass v. Auto Glass Specialists, 134 F. Supp. 2d 897, 900-01

(W.D. Mich. 2001).

6. MICH. COMP. LAWS § 445.903(1)(a)–(1)(kk).

7. See, e.g., Kovack v. Daimler Chrysler Corp., 2006 WL 1293213, at *3

(Mich. Ct. App. 2006) (“[P]laintiff failed to create a genuine issue of

material fact that defendant engaged in ‘[u]nfair, unconscionable, or