By Elena Durnbaugh
Gongwer News Service
Attorney General Dana Nessel is speaking out fiercely against a bill introduced last week by Rep. Bill Schuette, saying the legislation puts businesses ahead of consumer protection.
HB 5725, sponsored by Schuette, R-Midland, codifies the regulatory compliance exemption within the Michigan Consumer Protection Act. This would mean that transactions and conduct already regulated by state and federal law are not subject to additional, duplicative regulations, and it would cement in statute limits on the attorney general’s right to investigate state-licensed industries for consumer protection violations.
The exemption is currently in question before the Michigan Supreme Court in Nessel v. Eli Lilly and Co.
The attorney general argued before the Supreme Court that the limitations imposed by the court’s 1999 Smith v. Globe Life Ins. Co and 2007 Liss v. Leiston-Richards, Inc. decisions have hurt the state’s ability to enforce the Michigan Consumer Protection Act.
If the standard was eliminated, licensed professionals and regulated industries could face additional regulations, which could lead to higher costs and greater uncertainty, the Michigan Alliance for Legal Reform said in a statement.
“The Michigan Supreme Court is poised to upend decades of settled law, fundamentally changing how licensed professionals and regulated industries operate while exposing workers and job providers to expansive litigation and higher costs,” Zach Rudat, director of the Michigan Alliance for Legal Reform, said in a statement. “Preserving the regulatory compliance exemption is essential to ensuring our legal system is predictable, balanced and avoids unnecessary duplication.”
Nessel said that the current exemption standard is the reason Michigan’s consumer protection laws lag other states’ laws.
“At a time when the federal government is abandoning any meaningful consumer protection efforts, shuttering the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and catering to the whims of big businesses with the President’s ear, Michigan lawmakers should be looking for ways to strengthen our consumer protection laws, not waving a white flag to bad actors’ business abuses,” she said in a statement. “Consumer protection, defending Michigan residents from price gouging, dishonest deals and predatory business practices is a tentpole responsibility of the Attorney General’s office, and frankly, the son of a former Attorney General should know better than to think that gutting our already weak consumer protection laws is anything other than a gift to the worst, most predatory offenders looking to take advantage of Michigan customers.”
Schuette said the legislation wasn’t a blanket exemption.
“It merely ensures licensed professionals and regulated industries are not subject to duplicative red tape,” he said. “That’s why small businesses and family-owned companies support this legislation, while the attorney general is searching for ways to make it even harder to make a living in Michigan.”
Gongwer News Service
Attorney General Dana Nessel is speaking out fiercely against a bill introduced last week by Rep. Bill Schuette, saying the legislation puts businesses ahead of consumer protection.
HB 5725, sponsored by Schuette, R-Midland, codifies the regulatory compliance exemption within the Michigan Consumer Protection Act. This would mean that transactions and conduct already regulated by state and federal law are not subject to additional, duplicative regulations, and it would cement in statute limits on the attorney general’s right to investigate state-licensed industries for consumer protection violations.
The exemption is currently in question before the Michigan Supreme Court in Nessel v. Eli Lilly and Co.
The attorney general argued before the Supreme Court that the limitations imposed by the court’s 1999 Smith v. Globe Life Ins. Co and 2007 Liss v. Leiston-Richards, Inc. decisions have hurt the state’s ability to enforce the Michigan Consumer Protection Act.
If the standard was eliminated, licensed professionals and regulated industries could face additional regulations, which could lead to higher costs and greater uncertainty, the Michigan Alliance for Legal Reform said in a statement.
“The Michigan Supreme Court is poised to upend decades of settled law, fundamentally changing how licensed professionals and regulated industries operate while exposing workers and job providers to expansive litigation and higher costs,” Zach Rudat, director of the Michigan Alliance for Legal Reform, said in a statement. “Preserving the regulatory compliance exemption is essential to ensuring our legal system is predictable, balanced and avoids unnecessary duplication.”
Nessel said that the current exemption standard is the reason Michigan’s consumer protection laws lag other states’ laws.
“At a time when the federal government is abandoning any meaningful consumer protection efforts, shuttering the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and catering to the whims of big businesses with the President’s ear, Michigan lawmakers should be looking for ways to strengthen our consumer protection laws, not waving a white flag to bad actors’ business abuses,” she said in a statement. “Consumer protection, defending Michigan residents from price gouging, dishonest deals and predatory business practices is a tentpole responsibility of the Attorney General’s office, and frankly, the son of a former Attorney General should know better than to think that gutting our already weak consumer protection laws is anything other than a gift to the worst, most predatory offenders looking to take advantage of Michigan customers.”
Schuette said the legislation wasn’t a blanket exemption.
“It merely ensures licensed professionals and regulated industries are not subject to duplicative red tape,” he said. “That’s why small businesses and family-owned companies support this legislation, while the attorney general is searching for ways to make it even harder to make a living in Michigan.”
––––––––––––––––––––
Subscribe to the Legal News!
https://legalnews.com/Home/Subscription
Full access to public notices, articles, columns, archives, statistics, calendar and more
Day Pass Only $4.95!
One-County $80/year
Three-County & Full Pass also available
