The Michigan Poverty Law Program recently filed amicus briefs in two cases before Michigan’s Supreme Court that will have a significant impact on the state’s low-income consumers.
Attorney General v Eli Lilly and Co.
In Attorney General v. Eli Lilly and Co., the Michigan Supreme Court is reconsidering its interpretation of a narrow exemption in Michigan’s Consumer Protection Act. The Court’s current, overly broad interpretation of this exemption has resulted in Michigan having one of the weakest consumer protection statutes in the country.
This once-robust statute was intended to protect Michigan consumers from unfair, unconscionable, and deceptive practices across the marketplace. As a result of the Court’s decisions, the National Consumer Law Center (NCLC) has documented that the Act now covers “almost no business,” “almost no consumer transactions,” and “is of little or no use to consumers.”
MPLP’s amicus brief, joined by the Legal Services Association of Michigan and NCLC, documents the widespread and growing harms that unfair and deceptive practices cause to Michigan’s low-income consumers, including an estimated $204 million lost by Michigan consumers in 2024 alone. The brief argues that the Court’s current interpretation conflicts with the plain language of the statute and Legislature’s clear intent to create meaningful consumer protections. It urges the Court to narrow its interpretation of the statute’s exemption and, in doing so, restore critical consumer protections to Michiganders.
The Court heard oral argument in November and is expected to issue a decision by July 31.
Senate v House
In Senate v House, the Michigan Supreme Court is considering whether nine bills that passed the legislature during the 2023-2024 legislative session must be sent to the Governor for approval. Among these are two bills—HB 4900 and 4901—that would expand the income and assets that are exempt from garnishment and collection in bankruptcy.
MPLP’s amicus brief, which was joined by NCLC, documents the widespread and significant harm caused by the failure to present these bills to the Governor. The brief notes that an estimated 22% of Michigan consumers—and 44% of consumers in communities of color—with credit reports face collection actions and Michigan’s current garnishment protections are among the worst in the nation.
The brief argues that HB 4900 would ensure that debtors facing collection can continue to meet their basic needs—such as, housing, food, and medical care—and maintain their employment. It urges the Court to take swift action to send these bills to the Governor.
The Court is scheduled to hear oral argument in the case on May 6.