The Michigan Supreme Court sided with the state Attorney General Friday in a case against drug-maker Eli Lilly.
The issue began in 2022 when Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel asked a Lansing court for subpoenas to investigate insulin pricing under the Michigan Consumer Protection Act.
The law has an exception for government-licensed business operations. And, in past cases from 1999 and 2007, state courts broadly interpreted that exception to apply to authorized business in general, even when a company has allegedly acted in a specific way that isn’t allowed.
Eli Lilly, the maker of Humalog insulin, successfully fought the subpoenas claiming that the state's Consumer Protection Act exceptions covered its operations. But in a 4-3 split ruling, the Michigan Supreme Court is now overturning that precedent.
Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel says that’s major. She noted concerns with the past interpretation of the law in a recorded video statement.
“If a business held any kind of license or occupational credential, they became untouchable. Even if their misconduct had nothing to do with the rules or laws that applied to their licensure,” Nessel said.
Despite the win to strike down the precedent, Nessel’s office still hasn’t accused Eli Lilly of doing anything wrong.
For that reason, liberal justices Kyra Harris Bolden and David Bernstein joined conservative Justice David Viviano in dissenting. Bolden wrote the dissenting opinion for the trio.
“[W]ithout trying to argue a violation of the MCPA, there’s no actual controversy. Fundamental to obtaining declaratory relief on the parties’ rights and obligations under the MCPA is asserting that a violation of the MCPA may have occurred,” Bolden wrote.
The case now returns to circuit court.
