Legislative Analysis
Phone: (517) 373-8080
CAR RENTAL SMOKING FEES
http://www.house.mi.gov/hfa
House Bill 4902 as introduced Analysis available at
Sponsor: Rep. Stephanie A. Young http://www.legislature.mi.gov
Committee: Judiciary
Complete to 5-13-24
SUMMARY:
House Bill 4902 would amend the Michigan Consumer Protection Act to require a car rental
company to provide, at the time of a price estimate for renting a vehicle as well as in the rental
agreement, its smoking fee policy and the amount of the fee.
The bill also would require that the smoking fee policies of car rental companies allow a
consumer to have the vehicle inspected during business hours and, when the vehicle is returned,
to have the car rental company make a determination as to whether the smoking fee will be
charged.
The bill would provide that a violation of the above is unlawful under the act as a deceptive
business practice.
MCL 445.903h
BACKGROUND:
Remedies
A person who suffers a loss due to a violation of the Michigan Consumer Protection Act can
sue to recover $250 or actual damages, whichever is greater, along with reasonable attorney
fees. Any person can sue for a declaratory judgment that an act or practice is unlawful under
the act or for an injunction against someone engaging or about to engage in such conduct. In
addition, the attorney general or a prosecuting attorney can bring an action to permanently
enjoin a person from engaging in an unlawful act or practice, and a court may assess a fine of
up to $25,000 if the conduct is found to be unlawful. The act also allows for a class action to
be brought under certain circumstances.
Applicability
Section 4(1)(a) of the Michigan Consumer Protection Act provides that a transaction or conduct
that is specifically authorized under laws administered by a regulatory board or officer acting
under state or federal law is exempt from the act. In 1999, in Smith v Globe Life Insurance Co.,
the Michigan Supreme Court held that this exemption applies when “the general transaction is
specifically authorized by law, regardless of whether the specific misconduct alleged is
prohibited” (emphasis added). That is, rather than a business practice being exempt from the
act if it is specifically authorized by law, the court held that a practice whose legality under the
act is in dispute is exempt if the general activity being engaged in is authorized and regulated
under law. 1 With regard to House Bill 4902, it is thus unclear whether the specific conduct the
1
See https://www.michbar.org/file/journal/pdf/pdf4article2070.pdf
House Fiscal Agency Page 1 of 2
 bill would prohibit would nonetheless be exempt from the Michigan Consumer Protection Act
under Smith and subsequent court decisions. An appeal related to those decisions is currently
before the Michigan Supreme Court. 2
FISCAL IMPACT:
The bill would have no fiscal impact on the state or local units of government.
Legislative Analyst: Rick Yuille
Fiscal Analyst: Michael Cnossen
■ This analysis was prepared by nonpartisan House Fiscal Agency staff for use by House members in their
deliberations and does not constitute an official statement of legislative intent.
2
https://www.courts.michigan.gov/courts/supreme-court/cases-awaiting-argument/165961-attorney-general-v-eli-
lilly-and-company/
House Fiscal Agency HB 4902 as introduced Page 2 of 2


Statutes affected:
House Introduced Bill: 445.903