Comments on this legislation    Post new comment    Text and Analysis    Add to Watch List 
  Previous   Next 

• Introduced by Rep. Robert Dean (D) on June 18, 2008, to establish as “prima facie” evidence that a merchant has violated the state law against charging a price of a service or good (like gasoline) that is “grossly in excess of” the usual price if the amount charged represents a “gross disparity” between the “average price” or the “readily obtainable” price during the preceding 30 days, and the increase is not due to additional costs attributable to national or international market trends.
  • Referred to the House Judiciary Committee on June 18, 2008.
    • Reported in the House on September 17, 2008, with the recommendation that the substitute (H-1) be adopted and that the bill then pass.
  • Substitute offered in the House on September 17, 2008, to replace the previous version of the bill with one that revises details but does not change the substance of the bill as previously described. The substitute passed by voice vote in the House on September 17, 2008.
  • Amendment offered by Rep. Kimberly Meltzer (R) on September 17, 2008, to require the Public Service Commission to perform a quarterly review of the cost of each component of gasoline (wholesale price, delivery cost, taxes, etc.), and publish the results on a web site. The amendment passed by voice vote in the House on September 17, 2008.
  • Amendment offered by Rep. Paul Condino (D) on September 17, 2008, to eliminate a provision of the Consumer Protection Act that prohibits prosecution under the Act of insurance company actions that are governed by the state insurance code. Note: The Insurance Code provides its own penalties violation of its provisions by insurance companies. A Michigan Supreme Court rulings, Smith v. Globe Life Insurance and Attorney General v. Diamond Mortgage, established that given the comprehensive regulatory regimes that already govern the insurance and mortgage businesses, also prosecuting them under the Consumer Protection Act would not be appropriate. See House Bills 4217 and 5421. Also, to give the Attorney General more powers to investigate and prosecute under the Michigan Consumer Protection Act, as proposed in Senate Bill 1504. The amendment passed by voice vote in the House on September 17, 2008.
• Passed 106 to 1 in the House on September 17, 2008, to establish as “prima facie” evidence that a merchant has violated the state law against charging a price of a service or good (like gasoline) that is “grossly in excess of” the usual price if the amount charged represents a “gross disparity” between the “average price” or the “readily obtainable” price during the preceding 30 days, and the increase is not due to additional costs attributable to national or international market trends. Also, to eliminate a provision of the Consumer Protection Act that prohibits prosecution under the Act actions by heavily regulated industries (like insurance or banking) governed by a comprehensive regulatory regime specific to the particular industry.
  Who Voted "Yes" and Who Voted "No"
• Received in the Senate on September 23, 2008.
  • Referred to the Senate Judiciary Committee on September 23, 2008.