Senator Moss’ statement is as follows:
It was back in March of 2017 that a windstorm in Michigan knocked nearly a million people out of power in our state in what was described as the largest weather event our utilities had experienced up until that point. As people all throughout our state were displaced and seeking temporary lodging, I got a call to my State Representative office about a motel in my district that just simply turned off its neon sign that advertised its $59-a-night rooms and instead started charging people up to $400. This was a shameful exploitation of desperate people in need. So, I reached out to the former Attorney General’s office at the time to go after this shady motel operator, but shockingly, I was told there wasn’t much he was able to do. Michigan’s price gouging law was too ineffective to go after bad actors during an emergency, and this event sparked my years-long effort to strengthen this law.
Michiganders shouldn’t be left behind when an emergency strikes. More than 30 other states have clear and precise restrictions on price increases of essential supplies that trigger once an emergency is declared. Attorneys general in states along the Gulf Coast and the Atlantic Coast proudly advertise their price gouging tipline when a hurricane approaches so people can report when unscrupulous businesses unlawfully jack up costs. While Michigan doesn’t experience hurricanes, we have our fair share of extreme weather emergencies, from winter storms to summer flooding to that historic windstorm years ago.
Sadly, we also have people looking to make a quick buck off the hardships of others, but we don’t have those same consumer protections as states around the country. Our language for this bill is specifically modeled after California, Arkansas, New Jersey, D.C., Rhode Island, West Virginia, Alabama, and Florida—a wide range of states all throughout the country with different sets of politics but with the same common goal of protecting their constituents during an emergency.
When inclement weather happens—it’s becoming more and more frequent—and we know people are suffering through this record-high cost-of-living crisis that’s stretching budgets razor thin, we must step up and protect Michigan families. That’s why we are working with partners like our state Attorney General’s office and the Michigan Restaurant and Lodging Association, who doesn’t want bad actors in their industry either, to go after the price gouging of emergency supplies, food, lodging, energy products, and others during a declared emergency. This would empower our Attorney General to hold violators legally accountable for trying to profit from vulnerable Michiganders in their time of most need.
Our efforts actually provided a critical framework during the COVID-19 pandemic to Governor Whitmer when she used the language of our bills in 2020 to write a temporary executive order that went after unjustified increases of masks, toilet paper, and other goods in that time we all remember way too well. Michiganders still need these protections today, even recently as emergencies have been declared here in just the last few months surrounding tornadoes, gas prices, and a water main break in my district in Auburn Hills that left parts of my district without water in May.
Navigating through emergencies is already stressful enough without greedy corporate actors taking advantage of our misery. We must put these safeguards into law and join most of the other states around the country that protect their residents from bad actors so that everyone can weather these storms ahead. I urge a “yes” vote on this package.
The following bill was read a third time:
Senate Bill No. 1042, entitled
A bill to prohibit excessive pricing for certain commodities and emergency services and supplies during a declared state of emergency; to provide remedies and penalties; and to provide for the powers and duties of certain state and local governmental officers and entities.
The question being on the passage of the bill,
The bill was passed, a majority of the members serving voting therefor, as follows: