FL findlemonlaw.com
Michigan · Topic Updated May 24, 2026

The Law: Michigan Lemon Law, MCPA, and Magnuson-Moss

The statutes behind a Michigan lemon-law claim — the New Motor Vehicle Warranty Act (MCL § 257.1401), the narrowed Michigan Consumer Protection Act (MCL § 445.901), federal Magnuson-Moss, and timing rules.

Michigan’s consumer-protection framework for defective vehicles is unusual: the Lemon Law itself is moderate-strength, the Michigan Consumer Protection Act has been functionally narrowed by case law, and federal Magnuson-Moss carries unusual weight as the primary attorney-fee engine.

The three pillars

  1. Michigan New Motor Vehicle Warranty Act — MCL § 257.1401 et seq. Refund or replacement; court action (after mandatory IDS procedure if certified); discretionary attorney fees under § 257.1407(2).
  2. Michigan Consumer Protection Act (MCPA) — MCL § 445.901 et seq. Civil court; actual damages; injunctive relief; but narrowed by Smith v. Globe Life Insurance Co., 460 Mich. 446 (1999) and follow-on cases — limited reach for motor-vehicle warranty cases.
  3. Federal Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act — 15 U.S.C. § 2301 et seq. Civil court; mandatory attorney fees under § 2310(d)(2); federal-court access; 4-year limitations.

Most experienced Michigan lemon-law strategy pairs the Lemon Law with Magnuson-Moss in federal court.

Topics in this section

Why Magnuson-Moss matters more in Michigan

In most states, the state consumer-protection act provides the mandatory attorney-fee hook that funds lemon-law practice. NC has UDTPA’s § 75-16.1. GA has FBPA’s § 10-1-399(d). OH has CSPA’s § 1345.09(F). PA has UTPCPL’s mandatory fees. CA has Song-Beverly’s own § 1794(d).

Michigan is different. The Lemon Law’s § 257.1407(2) attorney-fee provision is discretionary (the court “may” award fees), and MCPA’s coverage for motor-vehicle warranty cases is uncertain post-Smith v. Globe Life. So Magnuson-Moss’s mandatory § 2310(d)(2) fee provision steps in as the primary fee-recovery basis.

This shapes Michigan lemon-law strategy in a few ways:

  • Federal-court filing is more common in Michigan than in most states.
  • Magnuson-Moss is pleaded prominently in nearly every case.
  • MCPA is pleaded conservatively — if at all — given the Smith exemption risk.

How they interact procedurally

Michigan consumers must navigate:

  1. Manufacturer-required informal dispute settlement procedure (if one is certified under § 257.1407(1)) — typically BBB Auto Line. Mandatory if it exists.
  2. Court action — after the IDS procedure or if none exists, the consumer can file in Michigan Circuit Court or federal court (E.D./W.D. Mich.) under Magnuson-Moss concurrent jurisdiction.

Magnuson-Moss is not subject to the IDS requirement in the same way and can go directly to court for the fee-shifting purpose, though federal courts often expect Magnuson-Moss’s own § 2310(a)(3) IDS procedure as a procedural matter.

Related

Think you've got a lemon?

Compare your situation to your state's requirements — and connect with a vetted lemon-law attorney for a free case review.