Tracks devices, in Michigan

MCL 445.72a (Sec. 12a of Act 452 of 2004, added by 2006 PA 566) · Read the law's page

• Destroy, or arrange for the destruction of, any data containing personal information about an individual once that data is removed from the database and is not being retained elsewhere for a purpose state or federal law does not prohibit; retaining the data for an investigation, audit, or internal review does not violate this duty. Destroy the data by shredding, erasing, or otherwise modifying it so it cannot be read, deciphered, or reconstructed through generally available means.
• This binds a person (a private business or other legal entity) or an agency (a Michigan state government department, board, commission, office, authority, or unit, including a public university, but not a court) that maintains a database including personal information about multiple Michigan residents.
• You are considered compliant here if you are already subject to, and in compliance with, a federal law governing the disposal of records containing personal identifying information.
• A knowing violation is a misdemeanor punishable by a fine of up to $250 for each violation; this section creates no private right of action, though it preserves whatever other civil remedy state or federal law might otherwise provide.

2025 S.B. 360, proposed MCL 445.71a and 445.85c (secs. 11a and 20c), as passed by the Senate · Read the law's page

• As passed by the Senate, a person (any private entity) or agency (a Michigan state government unit) that owns, possesses, collects, or accesses personal information must implement and maintain reasonable security procedures: designate a security coordinator, identify internal and external risks, include appropriate safeguards addressing those risks, assess the safeguards' effectiveness, contractually require every service provider to maintain safeguards conforming to the NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0 or another industry-standard framework, and evaluate and adjust the procedures for changed circumstances.
• Reasonableness is judged by your size, the amount of personal information you own, possess, collect, or access, the type of activities for which you handle it, and the cost of the procedures relative to your resources. Conforming to the current NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0, or already being regulated by Michigan or the federal government and reasonably conforming to HIPAA, Gramm-Leach-Bliley Title V, the Federal Information Security Modernization Act of 2014, or HITECH, is deemed compliance.

Mich. H.B. 6098 (2026), adding section 3q to 1976 PA 331 (MCL 445.903) · Read the law's page

• As passed by the House, HB 6098 bars a person engaged in trade or commerce from using surveillance pricing, a pricing system that increases the price of a good or service based on an individual's personal identifiable data, in the sale of goods and services.
• Dynamic pricing, taxes, delivery fees and retailer loyalty programs are outside the definition, and the bar does not reach a financial institution, a price or credit decision based on a credit report used in compliance with the federal Fair Credit Reporting Act, or the pricing of insurance.

Mich. H.B. 6099 (2026), amending sections 2, 7 and 12 of 2011 PA 15 (MCL 445.312, 445.317 and 445.322) · Read the law's page

• As passed by the House, HB 6099 bars a person from using surveillance pricing, a pricing system that increases the price of a consumer item based on an individual's personal identifiable data, in the display of the total price of a consumer item offered for sale at retail.
• Dynamic pricing, taxes, delivery fees and retailer loyalty programs are outside the definition.