Michigan House Bill HB5035

Michigan 2025-2026 Regular Session

• Introduced: 9/24/25
• Refer: 9/24/25
• Report Pass: 12/9/25
• Engrossed: 2/18/26
• Refer: 2/24/26

Caption

Civil procedure: civil actions; civil action for making a false representation in assisted reproduction; provide for. Amends 1961 PA 236 (MCL 600.101 - 600.9947) by adding sec. 2980. TIE BAR WITH: HB 5036'25

Impact

The introduction of this bill could significantly alter the legal landscape surrounding assisted reproductive technologies in Michigan. By establishing explicit legal liabilities for false representations, the bill would provide a clearer framework for individuals affected by such actions to pursue legal remedies. This amendment is expected to empower patients, their spouses, donors, and conceived individuals to hold accountable those who provide misleading information during the reproductive process, thus promoting greater accountability in the industry.

Summary

House Bill 5035 aims to amend the Revised Judicature Act of 1961 by adding a new section that addresses false representations in assisted reproduction. Specifically, the bill establishes that individuals who engage in deceptive practices related to assisted reproduction can be held liable to affected parties for threefold actual damages, as well as reasonable attorney fees and costs. This initiative seeks to protect individuals who may be misled by healthcare providers or donors in reproductive contexts, ensuring they can seek recourse if wronged.

Sentiment

The sentiment towards HB 5035 has generally been supportive, especially among advocates for patients' rights and reproductive ethics. Proponents argue that it reinforces protection and transparency in assisted reproduction, allowing affected individuals to seek justice effectively. However, some stakeholders may express concerns regarding the implications for healthcare providers and the potential for increased litigation, fearing that it may lead to defensive practices rather than fostering open and honest communication between patients and providers.

Contention

While the bill appears to have solid support, discussions in legislative circles have highlighted potential contentions regarding its implementation and the definition of 'false representation.' Critics may argue that the language around false representation could be interpreted too broadly, leading to lawsuits over legitimate medical practices or honest mistakes. Moreover, the tie-in with HB 5036 suggests that the implementation of HB 5035 is contingent upon the passage of another bill, potentially complicating the legislative process.