Michigan Supreme Court Limits MCPA Exemption, Boosting Consumer Protections
Michigan Supreme Court narrows MCPA's regulatory compliance exemption, increasing enforcement.
Why it matters: This ruling expands the Michigan Consumer Protection Act’s reach, enabling stronger consumer claims and affecting compliance strategies for regulated industries and litigators.
- Decision issued on August 3, 2026, in Attorney General v. Eli Lilly and Company.
- Overturns 1999 and 2007 precedents that broadly allowed the regulatory compliance exemption.
- Eli Lilly’s insulin pricing practices were the case’s focal point under MCPA review.
- More than 80 regulated industries in Michigan now face higher litigation risks under MCPA.
On August 3, 2026, the Michigan Supreme Court delivered a decision in Attorney General v. Eli Lilly and Company that significantly narrows the scope of the regulatory compliance exemption within the Michigan Consumer Protection Act (MCPA). This exemption previously shielded conduct specifically authorized by regulatory agencies, limiting the MCPA's reach.
The case arose from an investigation launched by the Michigan Attorney General into Eli Lilly’s insulin pricing practices, which were alleged to violate the MCPA. Eli Lilly argued its pricing was exempt from MCPA scrutiny because it was approved by federal and state regulators, invoking the regulatory compliance exemption.
However, the Michigan Supreme Court rejected this broad interpretation, overturning prior rulings in Smith v. Globe Life Ins Co. (1999) and Liss v. Lewiston-Richards, Inc. (2007), which had broadly applied the exemption to many regulated transactions and conduct.
Paul Novak of the Michigan Association for Justice noted the previous interpretation allowed conduct beyond regulatory approvals to be exempt, saying, "The consequence of that is that all types of conduct that goes well beyond what the (U.S. Food and Drug Administration) authorized in its 1996 approval letter is now characterized as exempt."
The ruling now opens the door for increased consumer protection enforcement, exposing over 80 regulated industries and professions in Michigan to greater litigation risks under the MCPA. Businesses in these sectors should reassess their compliance frameworks and legal exposure to adapt to this shift.
Michigan Supreme Court Chief Justice Megan Cavanagh remarked during oral arguments, "It seems a little bit to me like you’re wanting to have your cake and eat it too," highlighting skepticism toward broad exemption claims.
Eli Lilly’s attorneys have maintained that no legally viable MCPA violation was alleged, with John O'Quinn stating, "The department has declined to show any legally viable violation has been alleged in the first place." The case continues to attract close attention as it could redefine enforcement under the MCPA.
By the numbers:
- 80+ regulated industries at increased litigation risk — post-ruling MCPA enforcement exposure
- 1999 and 2007 — years of overturned precedents limiting MCPA applicability
- August 3, 2026 — date Michigan Supreme Court issued the key ruling
Yes, but: The ruling’s impact on Eli Lilly’s insulin pricing and business operations remains unclear, pending further proceedings.
What's next: Watch for increased Attorney General enforcement actions and potential litigation across Michigan regulated sectors.