When determining whether a Michigan Consumer Protection Act claim falls under the exemption in MCL 445.904(1)(a), courts “should consider whether the specific transaction or conduct at issue, rather than the general transaction, is authorized by law.”

A custody order does not determine a child’s domicile for purposes of the no-fault act. As the domicile rule set forth in Grange Ins Co of Mich v Lawrence, 494 Mich 475 (2013) requires courts to treat child custody orders as dispositive of the question of domicile, Grange is overruled.

The 2-1 published decision in Bensch upholds the rule first set forth in People v Peterson, 62 Mich App 258 (1975), allowing criminal defendants to reject probation for jail time.