House Bill 5725 of 2026 Guts AG Nessel's Insulin Lawsuit

Attorney General Dana Nessel has advanced a creative interpretation of the Michigan Consumer Protection Act in her insulin price fixing lawsuit against Eli Lilly.  She lost in the lower courts and her case was heard by the Michigan Supreme Court in November, but no ruling has yet been handed down.  State Rep. Bill Schuette and 9 colleagues introduced HB 5725 to codify the regulatory compliance exemption AG Nessel is challenging.

HB 5725 has been referred to the Michigan House Judiciary Committee:

https://michiganadvance.com/2026/03/19/house-republican-introduces-bill-that-would-essentially-nullify-nessels-insulin-price-gouging-suit/

https://www.legislature.mi.gov/Bills/Bill?ObjectName=2026-HB-5725

House Republican introduces bill that would essentially nullify Nessel’s insulin price gouging suit
By Katherine Dailey - March 19, 2026

Rep. Bill G. Schuette (R-Midland) introduced a bill on Tuesday that would codify the regulatory compliance exemption within the Michigan Consumer Protection Act into Michigan state law — an exemption that Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel is currently challenging in the state Supreme Court.

The exemption, in short, excludes activities already approved by government or regulatory agencies from being challenged under the Michigan Consumer Protection Act. In Nessel’s suit against pharmaceutical manufacturer Eli Lilly and Company, she argues that the company’s pricing practices for insulin, which some consider price gouging, are illegal. But the company argues that they fall under this exemption.

“This flawed and broad interpretation of a narrow exemption within the MCPA shields many corporations from any state scrutiny of even the most egregiously unfair alleged business conduct,” Nessel’s office said in 2024.

Schuette’s bill, House Bill 5725, would basically nullify Nessel’s lawsuit by establishing in state law the very provision that she is seeking to challenge.

When asked for comment, Nessel told Michigan Advance she was staunchly opposed to the bill.

“The State of Michigan is already distantly behind other states’ consumer protection laws, and the overbroad judicial exemptions Rep. Schuette seeks to encapsulate into law are the main reason why,” Nessel said. “At a time when the federal government is abandoning any meaningful consumer protection efforts, shuttering the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, and catering to the whims of big businesses with the President’s ear, Michigan lawmakers should be looking for ways to strengthen our consumer protection laws, not waving a white flag to bad actors’ business abuses.

The Michigan Alliance for Legal Reform, a coalition of business associations formed in November 2025 to advocate against “lawsuit abuse” — which has also been criticized as disproportionately supporting the interests of the insurance industry — said in a press release that the group supports Schuette’s legislation, and that if the exemption were eliminated, “licensed professionals and regulated industries would be exposed to overlapping regulations, greater uncertainty, abusive litigation, and higher costs.”

“The Michigan Supreme Court is poised to upend decades of settled law, fundamentally changing how licensed professionals and regulated industries operate while exposing workers and job providers to expansive litigation and higher costs,” Zach Rudat, the organization’s director said in a press release. “Preserving the regulatory compliance exemption is essential to ensuring our legal system is predictable, balanced and avoids unnecessary duplication.”

Nessel, however, said defending Michigan residents from price gouging and other predatory business practices was a “tentpole responsibility” of her office and that Schuette, as the son of former Michigan Attorney General Bill Schuette, “should know better than to think that gutting our already weak consumer protection laws is anything other than a gift to the worst, most predatory offenders looking to take advantage of Michigan customers.”

The state Supreme Court heard arguments in the case last November, but has yet to issue a ruling on whether to allow Nessel’s lawsuit to proceed.