Michigan Consumer Protection Means More Than Fraud

When you hire a professional, you want to know they're going to use the right methods, tools, and expertise. That's what the Michigan Consumer Protection Act is all about. A recent court decision confirms: that means more than just fraud.


When Susan Travis, had a small fire in her home. She contacted her home insurance company to repair the smoke damage and it referred her to a professional restoration company, McCall Enterprises, Inc. But she didn't bargain for the problems that came with that referral.

McCall used an ozone generator to remove the smoke damage, a practice not approved by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). McCall turned the machine on and let it run for 24 hours. Travis and co-plaintiff Ronald Brownlow, were told to leave for the weekend. When they returned, they found damage to carpet, wood, plastic, and rubber all throughout the house. In the days to come, both plaintiffs also had health problems connected to ozone exposure.

They filed suit under the Michigan Consumer Protection Act (MCPA). McCall thought it was in the clear. It asked the court to enter a summary judgment dismissing the case because the plaintiffs hadn't proven fraud. The Court of Appeals issued a published opinion saying McCall was wrong.

The Michigan Consumer Protection Act gives consumers a way to fight back against unfair or deceptive merchant conduct, even when that behavior doesn't amount to fraud. Some of the parts of the law include fraud-like language, but that doesn't mean courts should require plaintiffs to prove fraudulent intent.

Travis said McCall violated 4 sections of the MCPA: that McCall falsely presented an ozone generator was approved for smoke odor removal; and that McCall failed to tell her about the risk of damage to her property.

McCall asked for dismissal because Travis hadn't claimed that it intended to misrepresent the information. But the court said she didn't have to. A previous court case had allowed a judge to use historical fault law (called common law) to interpret the term “material fact.” But interpreting a word is very different from reading in an entirely new requirement: intent to defraud. The court said:

“This Court has made clear that the MCPA is a remedial statute designed to prohibit unfair practices in trade or commerce, and must be liberally construed to achieve its intended goals. . . . Requiring a plaintiff to prove the intent element of fraud where it is not provided for in the statute clearly inhabits the intended goals of the MCPA and is contrary to the plain language of the statute.”

The Michigan Consumer Protection Act is bigger than fraud. It protects consumers against all kinds of unfair and deceptive merchant practices. If you have been the victim of one of those practices, Dani K. Liblang and The Liblang Law Firm, P.C., is here to help. Contact the Liblang Law Firm today for a free consultation to see if the MCPA will help protect you.