Michigan House Bill HB5725

Michigan 2025-2026 Regular Session

• Introduced: 3/17/26
• Refer: 3/17/26

Caption

Consumer protection: other; applicability of consumer protection act; modify. Amends sec. 4 of 1976 PA 331 (MCL 445.904).

Summary

HB 5725 amends section 4 of the Michigan Consumer Protection Act to revise and clarify when the act does not apply. The bill preserves the general rule that the consumer protection act does not cover transactions or conduct already authorized or regulated by state or federal regulatory boards or officers, and it continues the existing exclusion for certain media entities when publishing advertisements unless they knew, or reasonably should have known, the ad was false or deceptive, or had a direct financial interest in the sale. The bill also restates and organizes exemptions for practices made unlawful by other state laws, including the banking code, public utilities law, motor carrier act, savings bank act, credit union act, and certain insurance code provisions. It maintains the special treatment for insurance-related claims, including the date-based limitation tied to March 28, 2001, and the June 5, 2014 filing cutoff for certain older claims. In addition, it clarifies that the act does not create a separate consumer protection cause of action for deceptive practices by persons operating under a state or federal license, and it places the burden of proving an exemption on the person claiming it.

Impact

HB 5725 would narrow and clarify the reach of the Michigan Consumer Protection Act by reinforcing exemptions for regulated industries and licensed businesses. Its practical effect is to limit duplicative consumer protection claims where other statutes already govern the conduct, especially in banking, insurance, utilities, motor carriers, credit unions, and other licensed sectors. The bill also preserves existing limitations on liability for publishers and broadcasters in advertising contexts and keeps the burden on defendants to prove that an exemption applies.

Sentiment

Based on the bill text and the absence of recorded committee testimony or votes in the provided material, the bill appears to be a technical or clarifying measure rather than a highly controversial policy change. The structure of the amendment suggests an effort to align the consumer protection act with existing regulatory schemes and prior case-law or statutory carve-outs. No opposing viewpoints, recorded roll-call concerns, or committee debate are available in the provided context.

Contention

The main point of contention, if any, would likely be the scope of the exemptions from the consumer protection act. Consumer advocates could view the expanded or reaffirmed carve-outs for regulated industries and licensed businesses as limiting private remedies, while regulated entities and their supporters would likely favor the clarification to avoid overlapping liability. The insurance-related date restrictions and the exclusion for conduct already covered by other laws are the most legally significant limitations, but no specific objections or supporters are identified in the provided record.