Michigan Senate Bill SB0354

Michigan 2025-2026 Regular Session

• Introduced: 6/4/25
• Refer: 6/4/25

Caption

Consumer protection: solicitations; provisions relating to the regulation of home solicitations and telephone solicitations; remove telephone solicitations. Amends title & secs. 1 & 3 of 1971 PA 227 (MCL 445.111 & 445.113) & repeals secs. 1a - 1e of 1971 PA 227 (MCL 445.111a - 445.111e). TIE BAR WITH: SB 0351'25

Impact

This proposed legislation introduces significant changes to the legal framework governing how home solicitations and telephone solicitations are conducted. Specifically, it repeals several sections of the existing law while amending others, likely increasing the responsibilities of sellers to inform potential buyers about their cancellation rights. For instance, sellers will be mandated to provide clear cancellation notices, allowing buyers to cancel transactions within three business days. This is particularly significant in ensuring that consumers are not pressured into making impulsive purchases without understanding their right to withdraw from transactions.

Summary

Senate Bill 354 aims to amend the existing law regarding home solicitation sales and telephone solicitations in Michigan. The bill proposes to define the rights and responsibilities of both parties involved in home solicitation sales, which are transactions where goods or services exceeding $25 are sold at the consumer's residence. It seeks to provide consumers with better protection against potentially coercive sales tactics, particularly through the regulation of telephone solicitations, which often target vulnerable populations. The bill emphasizes the requirement of a written agreement in such transactions, ensuring that consumers are adequately informed of their rights and obligations.

Contention

Despite the bill's consumer-friendly intentions, some may argue that it could impose additional burdens on businesses, particularly small enterprises that rely heavily on home solicitations and telemarketing. Proponents of the bill will likely contend that these regulations are necessary to protect consumers from exploitation and ensure transparency in sales practices. On the other side, critics may claim that such laws could stifle legitimate business practices and lead to reduced market flexibility, particularly for entrepreneurs focusing on direct sales models. The balance between consumer protection and entrepreneurial freedom is bound to be a central point of contention as discussions around the bill progress.