Consumer protection: other; amendments to the Michigan consumer protection act; provide for. Amends title & secs. 2, 4, 5, 10 & 15 of 1976 PA 331 (MCL 445.902 et seq.) & adds secs. 4a, 5a, 8a & 21a.
Senate Bill 134 would amend the Michigan Consumer Protection Act in several ways, primarily by expanding and clarifying the statute’s coverage and strengthening enforcement tools. The bill revises definitions such as “trade or commerce,” “business opportunity,” “elder,” “vulnerable adult,” “small business,” and related terms, and it expressly includes pyramid promotional schemes while excluding franchises and certain single-business sales from the business-opportunity definition. It also adds a liberal-construction clause, stating that the act should be interpreted broadly and that its remedies are cumulative rather than exclusive.
The bill would also increase the Attorney General’s and, in some cases, prosecuting attorneys’ investigative and enforcement authority. It creates a pre-suit written demand process for testimony, interrogatories, and document production, with protective-order procedures and confidentiality rules, and it authorizes civil fines for noncompliance or destruction of evidence. In addition, it expands civil penalties for violations targeting elders or vulnerable adults, allows class actions and broader equitable relief in consumer cases, and creates a consumer protection and antitrust revolving enforcement and education fund to receive certain attorney fees, costs, proceeds, damages, and refunds for enforcement and public education purposes.
If enacted, the bill would materially amend the Michigan Consumer Protection Act by broadening statutory definitions, adding new enforcement mechanisms, and increasing potential civil penalties. It would affect businesses engaged in consumer sales, advertising, solicitations, business-opportunity offerings, and other trade or commerce covered by the act, while also giving the Attorney General and prosecuting attorneys stronger tools to investigate suspected violations and preserve evidence. The new fund would redirect certain recoveries into a dedicated state treasury account for enforcement and consumer education rather than the general fund.
The available voting history suggests the bill was supported by a narrow majority but faced meaningful opposition. It was reported favorably in committee by a 5-2 vote and then passed the Senate on third reading by a close 19-18 roll call, indicating that the measure was politically contested rather than broadly bipartisan. The lack of committee transcript material limits insight into specific floor or committee arguments, but the close votes suggest substantial concern among some senators about the bill’s scope, penalties, or enforcement structure.
The most likely points of contention are the bill’s expanded enforcement powers, higher civil fines, and the creation of a new fund that diverts recoveries to enforcement and education uses. Businesses may object to broader liability exposure, especially the treatment of each solicitation, advertisement, or misrepresentation as a separate violation and the special penalties for conduct targeting elders or vulnerable adults. Others may question the new investigative demand authority, confidentiality provisions, and the bill’s broad definition of trade or commerce, while supporters are likely to emphasize stronger consumer protections, especially against deceptive practices, business-opportunity scams, and exploitation of older or vulnerable adults.