Michigan Supreme Court Overturns Decades of Consumer Protection Act Precedent: What the Eli Lilly Decision Means for Businesses

For decades, businesses in Michigan were often exempt from suits under the Michigan Consumer Protection Act (MCPA). On July 31, 2026, the Michigan Supreme Court “may [have opened] the door to increased litigation brought against businesses operating in Michigan” by narrowing that exemption. While the Court makes clear that it is narrowing the exemption, it remains unclear how narrow the exemption is and to what industries the exemption will still apply. 

The MCPA and the Exemption

The case of Attorney General v. Eli Lilly and Company, Docket No. 165961 arose from an investigation under the MCPA into insulin-pricing practices. Under prior caselaw, MCL 445.904(1)(a)—which exempts transactions or conduct “specifically authorized” under laws administered by a state or federal regulatory body—had been interpreted broadly to apply to any business operating in a regulated industry, regardless of the specific conduct alleged.

The Court held that two longstanding precedents were wrongly decided and overruled them, reasoning that those decisions improperly read the word “general” into the statute, as the exemption speaks of “a transaction or conduct specifically authorized,” not a “general transaction.” Further the Court found those decisions effectively wrote the phrase “specifically authorized” out of the statute by making the relevant inquiry whether the general type of activity was regulated—not whether the specific conduct alleged was authorized by law.

Accordingly, the Court ruled that the proper inquiry is whether a specific transaction or conduct is authorized by law—not whether a general category of activity is subject to regulation. The Court emphasized that the exemption was “intended to be a narrow exemption,” not a broad grant of immunity for entire industries.

The Impacts of the Eli Lilly Decision

The Court acknowledged the breadth of its decision, observing that a wide range of industries – “car dealers, car makers, mortgage lenders and services, real estate agents, plumbers, doctors, grocery stores, casinos, and pesticide application services” were called out by the Court – had been “judicially immunized” from MCPA claims since most businesses are subject to some form of regulation. Although the Court called out several industries that may be impacted by its decision because they had previously relied on the broad MCPA exemption it did not address whether claims against defendants in those industries would still fall within the narrowed scope of the exemption. The practical impact of this is that any business that previously relied on the existence of general regulatory oversight to shield it from MCPA claims must now reassess its risk profile.

Ultimately, the Eli Lilly case was remanded to the circuit court for application of the new standard—and additional cases testing the boundaries of the new standard will play out in the coming months. Lower courts are expected to further define the scope of the “specifically authorized” inquiry and apply it to the various defendants that had previously been exempt. Accordingly, pending and potential MCPA claims should be reevaluated, and risk assessments should continue to evolve as subsequent courts interpret the new standard.

If you have questions about how the Eli Lilly decision may affect your business, please contact a member of Honigman’s Litigation Department.