Michigan Court Dismissed Class Action Lawsuit
The ruling allows plaintiffs to continue pursuing their individual claims against approximately three dozen defendants.
Updated on Oct. 7, 2026 in Insurance
Live Poll
Should courts permit class action lawsuits for violations of consumer protection statutes?
The Michigan Court of Appeals upheld the dismissal of class action claims in a lawsuit citing the state Occupational Code and the Regulation of Collection Practices Act. However, the court reversed the dismissal of individual claims, allowing the case to move forward for those plaintiffs.
Why it matters
The ruling clarifies that Michigan residents may pursue individual legal action for certain consumer protection violations even when class-wide proceedings are not authorized. This distinction affects how consumers seek recovery for claims under statutes that do not explicitly permit class-action litigation.
The ruling impacts eight counts asserted by plaintiffs against approximately three dozen defendants. While class action status was denied, individual recovery pathways remain open for the parties involved.
The players
Michigan Court of Appeals
The intermediate appellate court responsible for interpreting state statutes and applying legal precedents to disputes.
The details
The court applied Michigan Court Rule 3.501(A)(5), which prevents class actions for statutes that mandate minimum recovery amounts unless those statutes explicitly authorize such collective lawsuits. Because the Occupational Code and the Regulation of Collection Practices Act lack this express authorization, the class action component could not proceed. The appellate court distinguished these collective claims from individual lawsuits, finding that the rule does not bar personal legal challenges, thus remanding those specific parts of the case.
Timeline
2022: Rodriguez I established the precedent regarding class action limitations.
2024: The Michigan Supreme Court vacated the prior Rodriguez I ruling.
October 6, 2026: The Court of Appeals issued the current ruling on the case.
Money Landscape
This decision follows the legal precedent set in Rodriguez v Hirshberg Acceptance Corp regarding the application of MCR 3.501(A) to consumer protection statutes. It clarifies the boundaries for collective versus individual recovery in Michigan financial litigation.
If you are involved in a consumer claim involving Michigan state statutes, this ruling highlights the necessity of filing as an individual rather than relying on class-wide litigation for certain violations. Consult with a qualified legal professional to understand how this impacts your potential recovery.
The takeaway
The court has affirmed that class action status is not permissible for statutes that do not explicitly provide for it under state rule MCR 3.501(A)(5). If you believe you have a claim, speak with a qualified legal professional about the merits of pursuing individual action.
Further reading
For more on consumer protections and legal guidelines, visit our Insurance section.
Source note: This article includes information reported by Michigan Lawyers Weekly.
Live Poll
Should courts permit class action lawsuits for violations of consumer protection statutes?
