Consumer, employment and defamation claims in Michigan

Under MCL 445.252, a regulated person collecting a debt may not make deceptive or untrue statements, misrepresent the legal status of a legal action or anyone's legal rights, falsely state that nonpayment will result in arrest, imprisonment, or seizure, garnishment, or sale of property, or use harassing or abusive methods such as repeated calls. Communications are limited to 8 a.m. to 9 p.m. unless you agree in writing. MCL 445.257 provides actual damages or $50, whichever is greater. Licensed collection agencies are covered by parallel rules and remedies in MCL 339.915 and 339.916.

The Act covers debts from purchases made primarily for personal, family, or household purposes, and it reaches regulated persons, meaning those whose collection is confined to a business other than a collection agency, such as a bank collecting its own claim. Collection agencies fall under article 9 of the Occupational Code, MCL 339.901 to 339.920, which contains nearly identical prohibitions in MCL 339.915 and the same damages remedy in MCL 339.916.

The statute also bars forms that simulate judicial process, telling an employer about the debt except in limited circumstances, publishing lists of debtors, postcards, and communicating with a debtor who is actively represented by an attorney whose name and address are known, after the creditor or its representative has contacted the attorney in writing, subject to the statute's exceptions. Calls from 9 p.m. to 8 a.m. are presumed inconvenient.

If the violation is willful, the court may assess a civil fine of not less than 3 times actual damages or $150, whichever is greater, and shall award reasonable attorney fees and court costs.

A violation does not erase a valid debt. Keep call logs, letters, voicemails, and screenshots, with the date and time of each contact. If you are a business that collects debts, a review of your letters and call practices before a complaint is worthwhile.

Authority: MCL 445.251(1)(a), (b), (g); MCL 445.252; MCL 445.257; MCL 339.915; MCL 339.916. Reviewed Oct. 2026.

Except in a class action, a person who suffers loss as a result of a violation of the Act may sue for actual damages or $250, whichever is greater, plus reasonable attorney fees, under MCL 445.911(2). Violations of section 3l carry actual damages or $5,000 under subsection (3). The Act covers trade or commerce, defined as business conduct providing goods, property, or services primarily for personal, family, or household purposes. A person may also seek a declaratory judgment or an injunction.

The statute allows individual actions, class actions for actual damages, and relief against practices defined as unlawful in section 3 of the Act. If the defendant shows by a preponderance of the evidence that a violation resulted from a bona fide error despite procedures reasonably adapted to avoid it, recovery is limited to actual damages.

Because trade or commerce is defined by personal, family, or household purposes, purchases made primarily for business purposes may fall outside the Act. The Act also does not apply to transactions or conduct specifically authorized under laws administered by a regulatory board or officer, and the party claiming the exemption has the burden of proving it. Under Attorney General v Eli Lilly & Co (Mich July 31, 2026), a court asks whether the specific transaction or conduct at issue is specifically authorized, not whether the defendant's industry is regulated generally. The Act also excludes conduct made unlawful by chapter 20 of the insurance code and, except for actions under section 11, conduct covered by the banking code and several other listed statutes.

The right to attorney fees makes the statute a practical tool for smaller consumer claims. Key documents are the contract or receipt, advertisements, messages with the seller, and proof of the loss. This answer reflects the Michigan Supreme Court decision in Attorney General v Eli Lilly & Co (July 31, 2026) and is current as of October 27, 2026.

Authority: MCL 445.911(1)-(4), (8); MCL 445.902(1)(g); MCL 445.904(1)-(4); Attorney General v Eli Lilly & Co, No. 165961 (Mich July 31, 2026). Reviewed Oct. 2026.

An action under the Act must not be brought more than 6 years after the occurrence of the method, act, or practice, or more than 1 year after the last payment in a transaction involving it, whichever period ends later, under MCL 445.911(9). A defendant who is sued may assert any claim under the Act arising out of the same transaction as a defense or counterclaim.

The two-part rule gives consumers more time in some payment-plan cases. If the deceptive practice occurred 7 years ago but you made a payment on the contract 8 months ago, the 1-year-after-last-payment alternative may keep the claim alive, because the later of the two periods controls.

The 6-year period runs from the occurrence of the practice, not from when you found out about it, so the date of each act should be identified early. A practice that happens at the sale and one that happens at a later collection call may have different dates.

The counterclaim sentence has a practical use. If a business sues you on a contract, you may be able to assert your own claims under the Act arising from the same transaction as a defense or counterclaim. The statute does not say what happens if the claim would be late on its own, so it should not be counted on.

Because deadlines under other claims, such as breach of warranty and fraud, can differ from this one, all potential claims should be checked together. Key documents are the contract, receipts, payment records, and the dates of each statement believed to be deceptive.

Authority: MCL 445.911(9). Reviewed Oct. 2026.

Possibly. The old rule that residential home builders are exempt from the Act no longer stands. In Attorney General v Eli Lilly & Co (Mich July 31, 2026), the Michigan Supreme Court overruled Liss v Lewiston-Richards and held that the exemption turns on whether the specific transaction or conduct at issue is specifically authorized by law. Breach of contract is another route, with a 6-year period under MCL 600.5807(9).

The exemption comes from MCL 445.904(1)(a), which provides that the Act does not apply to a transaction or conduct specifically authorized under laws administered by a regulatory board or officer. For years, Liss v Lewiston-Richards treated residential home builders as exempt because home building in general was authorized by the Michigan Occupational Code. On July 31, 2026, in Attorney General v Eli Lilly & Co, the Michigan Supreme Court overruled Liss. A court now looks first at the specific transaction or conduct the plaintiff says violates the Act, then asks whether that conduct is specifically authorized by law. The party claiming the exemption has the burden of proving it.

Eli Lilly involved insulin pricing, and the Court remanded without deciding how the test applies to a home builder, so each home project should be analyzed on its own facts. Other claims may include breach of contract, breach of a warranty, and fraud or misrepresentation, each with its own elements and deadline. Claims sounding in fraud use the 6-year residual period of MCL 600.5813, according to the Court of Appeals in Adams v Adams.

If you have a dispute over defective work or nonpayment on a home project, bring the contract, change orders, payments, photos, and all communications. The most important early step is to identify the contract and warranty terms. Claims against a contractor for property damage from a defective improvement can also face a separate time limit measured from occupancy or acceptance of the improvement, generally 6 years (MCL 600.5839), so the date you moved in matters. This answer reflects the Michigan Supreme Court decision in Attorney General v Eli Lilly & Co (July 31, 2026) and is current as of October 27, 2026.

Authority: Attorney General v Eli Lilly & Co, No. 165961 (Mich July 31, 2026); MCL 445.904(1)(a), (4); MCL 600.5807(9); MCL 600.5813; Adams v Adams, 276 Mich App 704, 710 (2007); MCL 600.5839(1). Reviewed Oct. 2026.

The Lemon Law covers new passenger vehicles, sport utility vehicles, pickups, and vans, but not motor homes or buses, under MCL 257.1401. The defect must first be reported within the earlier of the manufacturer's express warranty term or 1 year after delivery. A reasonable number of repairs is presumed if the same defect has been repaired 4 or more times within 2 years and persists, or the vehicle is out of service 30 or more days.

Under MCL 257.1403(5), the 4-repair presumption applies to the same defect or condition that substantially impairs the use or value of the vehicle, repaired 4 or more times by the manufacturer or dealer within 2 years of the first repair attempt. Before using the remedy, and after the third attempt, the consumer or representative must give the manufacturer written notice by return receipt service, and the manufacturer then has 5 business days after delivery to the designated facility to repair.

The days-out-of-service presumption applies if the vehicle is out of service for repairs a total of 30 or more days or parts of days during the express warranty term or within 1 year of delivery, whichever is earlier, with written notice required after 25 days.

The Act does not apply to a defect caused by a modification not installed by or for the manufacturer, or by abuse, neglect, or an accident after purchase. If the manufacturer participates in a qualifying informal dispute procedure, the Act does not apply to a consumer who has not used it first.

Keep every repair order. They are the main evidence.

Authority: MCL 257.1401(a), (f)-(g); MCL 257.1402; MCL 257.1403(5); MCL 257.1405; MCL 257.1406. Reviewed Oct. 2026.

If the defect continues after a reasonable number of repairs, the manufacturer must within 30 days replace the vehicle with a comparable one acceptable to you or accept return and refund the purchase price, less a reasonable allowance for use and any appraised damage not attributable to normal use or to the defect, under MCL 257.1403. A consumer who prevails may be allowed costs and attorney fees based on actual time expended, and Lemon Law rights cannot be waived, under MCL 257.1407.

The purchase price includes manufacturer-installed options and other charges made by or for the manufacturer. The use allowance is the purchase price multiplied by a fraction: the miles directly attributable to use by the consumer before the first report of the defect, plus all miles beyond 25,000, divided by 100,000. Towing and comparable rental costs not provided without cost are also reimbursed. The consumer has the right to demand a refund. For a lease, the consumer is entitled to a refund of the lease price paid.

The award of fees is discretionary: the court may allow costs and expenses, including attorney fees based on actual time expended, unless it decides an award would be inappropriate. The statute also says rights under the Act may not be waived.

Before filing, check that the vehicle and the defect fit the Act, that notice was properly given, and whether the manufacturer's dispute procedure must be used first. Key documents are the purchase or lease contract, every repair order, the warranty booklet, and any notice sent.

Authority: MCL 257.1403(1)-(2); MCL 257.1407; MCL 257.1405. Reviewed Oct. 2026.

A civil action under the Whistleblowers' Protection Act must be brought within 90 days after the occurrence of the alleged violation, under MCL 15.363(1). That is far shorter than the 3-year period for most personal injury and Elliott-Larsen claims. The action may be filed in the circuit court for the county where the violation occurred, where the complainant resides, or where the defendant resides or has its principal place of business.

Ninety days is a hard practical limit. The period runs from the occurrence of the alleged violation, such as a discharge or other adverse action, so an internal complaint or a job search should not be assumed to pause it. Because the date of the adverse action can be disputed in constructive discharge and ongoing retaliation cases, the safe course is to identify the likely date of the violation first and file within 90 days of the earliest date that could be argued.

The statute allows injunctive relief, actual damages, or both. Damages include reasonable attorney fees under the definition in subsection (3), and the court may also order reinstatement, back wages, and restored benefits and seniority under MCL 15.364.

A separate claim under another law, such as the Elliott-Larsen Civil Rights Act, may have a longer deadline, but that does not extend the whistleblower period.

If you were fired or punished after reporting a legal violation, call quickly. Key documents are the termination notice, the report, any response, and a timeline.

Authority: MCL 15.363(1)-(3); MCL 15.364; MCL 37.2801. Reviewed Oct. 2026.

MCL 15.362 prohibits an employer from discharging, threatening, or otherwise discriminating against an employee regarding compensation, terms, conditions, location, or privileges of employment because the employee reports or is about to report a violation or suspected violation of a law, regulation, or rule to a public body, unless the employee knows the report is false. The employee's motive for reporting is not relevant to whether the employee engaged in protected activity, according to Whitman v City of Burton.

The Act also protects an employee who is requested by a public body to participate in an investigation, hearing, or inquiry, or a court action. A report can be verbal or written, and the law covers violations of state, local, or federal law.

In Whitman, the Michigan Supreme Court held that a plaintiff's motivation is not relevant to whether he engaged in protected activity and that proof of a specific motivation is not a prerequisite to a claim. An employee who reports for personal reasons may still be protected, though the employee must still show the adverse action was because of the report.

If the claim is that you were about to report, the statute requires the employee to show that by clear and convincing evidence.

Remedies under MCL 15.364 include reinstatement, back wages, full reinstatement of fringe benefits and seniority, actual damages, or a combination, and the court may award costs of litigation including reasonable attorney fees and witness fees if it determines an award is appropriate. The suit must be filed within 90 days.

If you reported something and then faced retaliation, bring the report, who received it, the response, and the dates of each action that followed.

Authority: MCL 15.362; Whitman v City of Burton, 493 Mich 303 (2013); MCL 15.363(4); MCL 15.364. Reviewed Oct. 2026.

MCL 37.2202 prohibits an employer from failing or refusing to hire or recruit, discharging, or otherwise discriminating against an individual with respect to employment, compensation, or a term, condition, or privilege of employment because of religion, race, color, national origin, age, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, height, weight, or marital status. Sexual orientation and gender identity or expression were added effective February 13, 2024.

The Act also prohibits limiting, segregating, or classifying an employee or applicant in a way that deprives or tends to deprive them of opportunity, discrimination on the basis of sex in terms of a benefit plan, and treating an individual affected by pregnancy, childbirth, the termination of a pregnancy, or a related medical condition differently from another similar in ability or inability to work.

The statute does not apply to employment by the individual's parent, spouse, or child, and it does not prohibit a bona fide retirement policy that is not a subterfuge to evade the Act.

Other Michigan statutes cover other categories, such as disability, and federal law covers some of the same ground, so all possible claims and their different deadlines should be looked at together.

If you believe you were treated differently because of a protected characteristic, bring your offer letter or pay records, performance reviews, the comments or actions you believe were discriminatory, and any complaint you made. The fee arrangement is explained at the consultation, before you decide whether to hire a lawyer.

Authority: MCL 37.2202(1)-(3). Reviewed Oct. 2026.

In Major v Village of Newberry the Court of Appeals applied the 3-year limitations period of MCL 600.5805 to a civil rights claim and held that an agency dismissal does not shorten it. MCL 37.2801 allows a civil action for injunctive relief or damages, or both, including reasonable attorney's fees, in circuit court where the violation occurred or where the defendant resides or has its principal place of business.

In Major the plaintiff had filed with the Michigan Department of Civil Rights, which dismissed the charge, and she also had federal agency paperwork. The court held she could still sue under the state Act within the 3-year period, and the agency's action did not impose a shorter claim-filing deadline or control where she could sue.

The period runs from accrual, so the date of each discrete act, such as a termination, demotion, or denial of promotion, matters.

The statute defines damages as damages for injury or loss caused by each violation, including reasonable attorney's fees. Other related claims have different deadlines: for example, a whistleblower claim must be filed within 90 days.

Results cannot be predicted, and every case depends on its facts. If you believe you were discriminated against or retaliated against, bring your timeline and documents soon, because the shortest deadline among your claims controls how fast you need to move.

Authority: Major v Village of Newberry, 316 Mich App 527, 537-539 (2016); MCL 600.5805(2); MCL 37.2801. Reviewed Oct. 2026.

Under MCL 408.475, an employer shall pay an employee who voluntarily leaves all wages earned and due as soon as the amount can with due diligence be determined, and shall immediately pay a discharged employee all wages earned and due as soon as the amount can with due diligence be determined. An employee who believes the wage act was violated may file a written complaint with the state department within 12 months after the alleged violation, under MCL 408.481.

The 12-month window is short, and a shorter window of 30 days applies to a complaint filed under section 13(2) of the act. After a complaint is filed the department notifies the employer, investigates, and tries to resolve the dispute informally. If it cannot, it notifies the employer and employee within 90 days of the filing with a determination of the merits, and either side may request review within 14 days of the notice.

Special rules apply to employees working under contract when the amount due cannot be determined until the end of the contract, and to workers in hand harvesting of crops, who must be paid within 3 days after voluntary termination.

Whether a particular payment, such as a commission or accrued leave, counts as wages or fringe benefits under the act can depend on the act's definitions and on the employer's written policy or contract.

If you are owed final pay, gather pay stubs, your offer letter or commission plan, time records, and any messages about the amount. Ask about the options, including the department complaint and any other claims.

Authority: MCL 408.475; MCL 408.481(1)-(4). Reviewed Oct. 2026.

One year. MCL 600.5805(11) sets a 1-year period of limitations for an action charging libel or slander. That is shorter than the 3-year period for most injuries to person or property, the 2-year period for most assault, battery, and malpractice claims, and the 6-year period for most contract claims. Because the year can run quickly, preserve the statement and the date it was published, as well as the date you first saw or heard it, right away.

Libel is written or published defamation and slander is spoken defamation, and both fall under the same 1-year period. The practical task is to capture the evidence before it disappears: screenshots of posts with dates and URLs, copies of emails, names of people who heard or saw the statement, and any response from the person or platform.

A defamation claim generally accrues when the statement is published, not when you learn of it or when the harm appears (MCL 600.5827; Mitan v Campbell, 474 Mich 21, 24 (2005)). Arguments over accrual for online posts, republication, and later repetition can be fact-specific, so each publication and its date should be identified. A fraudulent concealment argument may sometimes be raised, but it should not be relied on.

A retraction demand can also be important to the remedies available, as discussed in a separate answer.

The constitution limits defamation claims in ways that vary with who the plaintiff is and what the subject is, and the standards differ for public figures and private individuals. If you are considering a claim, or if you have been threatened with one, bring the statement, the date, and the context quickly.

Authority: MCL 600.5805(11); MCL 600.5827; Mitan v Campbell, 474 Mich 21, 24 (2005). Reviewed Oct. 2026.

The Michigan Supreme Court stated four elements in Smith v Anonymous Joint Enterprise: a false and defamatory statement concerning the plaintiff, an unprivileged communication to a third party, fault amounting at least to negligence on the part of the publisher, and either actionability irrespective of special harm, called defamation per se, or the existence of special harm caused by publication.

A statement is defamatory if it tends so to harm the reputation of another as to lower the person in the estimation of the community or to deter third persons from associating or dealing with the person. Truth, opinion that cannot be proved false, and statements covered by a privilege are common defenses.

MCL 600.2911(1) treats words imputing a lack of chastity like words imputing the commission of a criminal offense, which are actionable in themselves. Otherwise a plaintiff may need to prove special harm.

The fault standard depends on the plaintiff. For a public official or public figure, the statute requires clear and convincing proof that the falsehood was published with knowledge that it was false or with reckless disregard of whether it was false. For a private individual, the statute requires that the falsehood concern the individual and be published negligently.

Because the details turn on who was speaking, who was affected, and what the statement was, the exact words, the context, and who read or heard them need to be reviewed before advising. Key items are screenshots, copies, and the identities of any witnesses.

Authority: Smith v Anonymous Joint Enterprise, 487 Mich 102 (2010); MCL 600.2911(1), (6)-(7). Reviewed Oct. 2026.

To recover exemplary or punitive damages in a libel action, you must before suing give the defendant notice to publish a retraction and allow a reasonable time to do so, under MCL 600.2911(2)(b). Otherwise, in libel and slander actions the plaintiff recovers only actual damages suffered in respect to property, business, trade, profession, occupation, or feelings. A demand is not required to sue for actual damages.

The retraction rules depend on the medium. For libel based on a radio or television broadcast, the retraction is made in the same manner and at the same time of day. For libel in a publication, it is published in the same size type, the same editions, and as far as practicable in substantially the same position. For other libel, it is published or communicated in substantially the same manner as the original libel.

Proof of the publication or correction is admissible in evidence on the defendant's good faith and in mitigation and reduction of exemplary or punitive damages.

Other provisions of the statute matter in practice: a defendant's notice that the words were true is not itself proof of malice, a defendant may prove mitigating circumstances, and damages cannot be awarded in a libel action for a fair and true report of public records or a public and official proceeding.

Because the demand can affect damages and the 1-year deadline is short, a written retraction demand sent early, with proof of delivery, makes it easier to show notice was given. Key items are the statement, the publisher's contact information, and where it appeared.

Authority: MCL 600.2911(2)-(3). Reviewed Oct. 2026.

Yes. Under MCL 600.2911(6), an action for libel or slander based on a communication involving public officials or public figures is not allowed unless the claim is sustained by clear and convincing proof that the defamatory falsehood was published with knowledge that it was false or with reckless disregard of whether it was false. For a private individual, the statute requires the falsehood be published negligently and limits recovery under that provision to economic damages, including attorney fees.

The Michigan Supreme Court has addressed what actual malice means. In Smith v Anonymous Joint Enterprise, the Court independently reviewed the record for actual malice, found clear and convincing evidence as to two defendants, and sent the question whether the fair reporting privilege in MCL 600.2911(3) applied back to the Court of Appeals.

Who counts as a public official or public figure is a legal and factual question that can be contested, and so is whether a private person's case involves a matter of public interest. The statute's text and the constitutional rules interact, and a note to the statute observes that a communication is not constitutionally privileged just because it involves a private person in a matter of public interest.

The practical consequence is that plaintiffs who may be public figures need evidence about the defendant's state of mind, such as what the defendant knew, what it ignored, and whether it relied on credible sources. Private plaintiffs need to prove negligence and economic loss.

If you are a business owner, an official, or someone in the public eye, bring the statement, the audience, and what you know about how it was prepared.

Authority: MCL 600.2911(6)-(7); Smith v Anonymous Joint Enterprise, 487 Mich 102 (2010). Reviewed Oct. 2026.