Recent changes to Michigan's consumer protection laws have sparked debate, and a coalition of Michigan industry groups have joined to oppose the removal of the regulatory compliance exemption under the Michigan Consumer Protection Act (MCPA) . This exemption previously shielded regulated industries from lawsuits under the MCPA, but a recent bill, SB 134 , would repeal it. MichBio and coalition partners believe that this could lead to increased litigation and costly lawsuits for businesses and submitted their concerns and opposition to the Senate Finance, Insurance & Consumer Protection Committee. This legislation is a response to the Michigan Supreme Court 1999 case decision in Smith v. Globe Life Insurance Company , which supposedly weakened the power of the Michigan Consumer Protection Act by exempting many industries, like pharmaceuticals, from liability, leaving residents ill-protected from scams and other deceptive activity. The MCPA currently does not apply to “[a] transaction or conduct specifically authorized under laws administered by a regulatory board or officer acting under statutory authority of this state or the United States.” In its Smith v. Glove Life Ins. Co. and Liss v. Lewiston-Richards, Inc. decisions, the Michigan Supreme Court (MSC) interpreted this to mean the following: if a person or company is licensed or approved to engage in a certain business or profession, and the transaction at issue falls within the scope of that license, that conduct falls outside the MPCA. While these rulings do not give a complete exemption to regulated industries from the MCPA (i.e., if the person or business is operating outside the scope of the occupation or profession, there could be an MCPA claim), they do provide protections. Attorney General Nessel, who testified in support of the legislation in the prior session , launched an investigation into insulin manufacturer Eli Lilly and asked the Michigan Supreme Court to reconsider the two previous MSC rulings that hinder the Department’s ability to take action against drug manufacturers and other regulated/licensed entities under the MCPA. Under the 1999 and 2007 decisions, Nessel is unable to even begin an investigation into Eli Lilly because it is regulated by both the Federal Drug Administration and the Michigan Board of Pharmacy, even though neither have authority over pricing. The Court heard oral arguments in that matter earlier this year .

A citizen petition has been filed objecting to the FDA's recent call for alternatives to animal testing, arguing that it could lead to reliance on unvalidated methods and pose risks to human subjects. The petition suggests that the FDA's move to embrace alternatives may not be fully vetted and could jeopardize human safety. Moreover, it calls on the FDA to amend its regulations, publish a guidance document on non-animal methods, and incorporate encouragement for their use in existing and future guidance documents. As background, on April 10, 2025, the FDA announced its intent to phase out the use of animal testing in the development of certain drugs and biologics. To help bring this “paradigm shift in drug evaluation” to fruition as outlined in a roadmap , FDA is offering pharmaceutical manufacturers incentives such as faster approval times and reduced testing requirements if they leverage emerging technologies that the agency believes hold the promise of cheaper, safer, and more ethical drug development processes. The FDA’s sights are currently set on obviating the need for animal testing specifically in monoclonal antibody trials. However, the agency emphasized in the announcement its desire to expand its efforts to all future applicable use cases. Opponents of animal testing have celebrated the FDA shift as a significant win. However, the fact is that such changes have been in the works for decades, as many research efforts in both the public and private sectors have focused on developing alternative testing technologies and models. The petition asks that FDA stay its implementation of the April 10 policy, saying it should not be put into practice without a public comment period and an independent expert review of the proposed alternatives to animal testing. Without public comment, the organization says the change is a rulemaking that doesn’t follow the requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act. Notwithstanding the petition, the FDA plans to host a public workshop later 2025 to discuss the roadmap and aims to launch the pilot program allowing select monoclonal antibody developers to use a primarily non-animal-based testing strategy.