From Deception to Antitrust: Michigan’s Newest Case Tests The Limits of Competition Law

Michigan AG Seeks to Recast Climate-Era Conduct as a Sherman Act Conspiracy

Over the past several years, many state attorneys general and cities have sued major oil companies, largely under state consumer protection and unfair or deceptive practices laws. Those cases have typically focused on alleged misstatements about climate change and related risks, emphasizing concerns over advertisements and disclosures, rather than competition law.

Michigan’s Attorney General is taking a different approach. In a lawsuit filed today in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Michigan, the State of Michigan invokes federal antitrust law to characterize decades of industry conduct, including trade association activity, public messaging, advertisements, investment choices, and intellectual property strategy, as a coordinated effort to hold back competing technologies and infrastructure. The theory represents a significant departure from prior climate-related litigation grounded in consumer protection.

Executive Summary

In People of the State of Michigan v. BP America Inc. et al, Case No. 1:26-cv-00254 (W.D. Mich. Jan 23, 2026), the State of Michigan alleges that four of the largest major oil companies and industry trade groups worked together for decades to slow the adoption of electric vehicles, renewable energy, and charging networks to preserve fossil fuels. The complaint asks the court to treat lobbying, trade association activity, intellectual property enforcement, investment choices, and public messaging as an illegal agreement under the antitrust laws.

The lawsuit attempts a substantial and novel expansion of antitrust law to political advocacy and long-term technology disputes.

What Michigan Alleges

The State defines two Michigan-focused markets: “transportation energy,” which it frames as gasoline versus electricity for fueling vehicles, and “primary energy,” which it defines as fossil-fuel heat versus renewable electricity for residential and public buildings.

According to the complaint, the defendants conspired to slow the development of renewable technologies and charging infrastructure for electric vehicles, pushed investment toward fossil fuel-adjacent projects such as carbon capture and storage, and shaped public and academic debate to delay electrification. The State claims these actions led to higher prices, fewer choices for consumers, and broad societal harms, and it asks the court to find this conduct per se unlawful.

Why the Case Represents a Novel Expansion of Antitrust

  • The theory attempts to frame long-term technology and infrastructure choices, such as electric vehicle batteries, charging networks, and renewable power, as being unlawful restraints of trade, rather than identifying any sort of classic restraints like fixing gasoline prices or reducing energy outputs. Specifically, the State asks the court to treat a mix of conduct by the defendants, lobbying, marketing, academic engagement, intellectual property disputes, and investment decisions, as per se illegal, even though courts usually examine these issues case by case under the “rule of reason.”
  • The complaint relies on trade association participation, similar messaging and investment choices, and shared views of the market to suggest a conspiratorial agreement in restraint of trade. However, those activities are common, often beneficial, and sometimes protected, and the complaint does not describe clear, recent commitments to restrict competing technologies in Michigan.
  • The State highlights broad societal harms from fossil fuels. These issues are typically addressed through legislation, regulation, or tort law, rather than through an antitrust theory.

Vulnerabilities in the Complaint

  • Lack of well-pleaded agreement: The complaint leans on the roles of the American Petroleum Institute and other industry groups, and decades of similar strategies, but provides few specific facts showing an actual agreement among the defendants to limit renewable energy or electric vehicle charging in Michigan within the relevant time period.
  • Mismatch with per se or “quick-look” treatment: The alleged conduct spans multiple markets and includes mixed forms of behavior. Courts are likely to require a full effects analysis, which the complaint supports only in generalized assertions.
  • Market definition and injury concerns: The Michigan-only market definitions are new and contestable. The damages theory depends on a speculative “what-if” world that assumes much earlier electric vehicle adoption, faster charging build-out, and major grid changes.
  • Timeliness issues: Although the State alleges recent overt acts, the core conduct and narrative reach back to the 1970s through the early 2000s, raising statute-of-limitations concerns.
  • Protected activity: Large parts of the case target lobbying, public messaging, and academic engagement, implicating constitutional protections for speech and petitioning and further undermining per se treatment under Section 1.

Likely Trajectory

Defendants are expected to move to dismiss on multiple grounds, including failure to plausibly plead any sort of conspiratorial agreement; inapplicability of per se or “quick-look” treatment; defective market definitions; lack of antitrust injury; timeliness; and constitutional defenses tied to advocacy and speech. Given the complaint’s reliance on broad, decades-long industry patterns and association activity rather than concrete, recent agreements to restrict output of substitutes in Michigan, the case faces a meaningful risk of dismissal.

Implications for Companies and Investors

If accepted, Michigan’s theory could subject advocacy, research priorities, public messaging, intellectual property strategy, and investment decisions to antitrust scrutiny whenever they appear to slow a rival technology. The approach would blur the line between policy debates and competition law and significantly expand antitrust risk for energy, transportation, and industrial companies engaged in decarbonization strategy discussions, an expansion courts have generally resisted.

Practical takeaways

  • Monitor the motion to dismiss for guidance on how courts will view cross-technology disputes and the evidentiary weight given to trade association activity.
  • Review controls around trade association participation, public messaging on technology pathways, and academic engagements to document independent decision-making.
  • Expect copycat filings or political scrutiny, but also expect courts to require plaintiffs to include concrete allegations of recent antitrust misconduct that results in measurable harm to prices or outputs.

Companies and investors should contact Varnum’s antitrust attorneys to evaluate how this case may affect advocacy, investment decisions, and antitrust compliance. 

Update Your HIPAA Notice of Privacy Practices by February 16, 2026

Update Your HIPAA Notice of Privacy Practices by February 16, 2026

Whether your company provides health benefits or qualifies as a covered entity under the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA), it is important to update your Notice of Privacy Practices (NPP) by February 16, 2026, to remain HIPAA compliant.

The updated requirements focus on how substance use disorder information may be used or disclosed and remove reproductive health language that was previously added but has since been revoked.

Required Updates to the Notice of Privacy Practices

Covered entities, including health plans and employers subject to HIPAA, must revise their NPP to include new and more restrictive requirements related to protected health information (PHI). Specifically, the NPP must:

  • Describe stricter limitations on the use and disclosure of substance use disorder records.
  • State that an individual’s written consent or a court order is required to use substance use disorder records in civil, criminal, administrative, or legislative proceedings against the individual.
  • Explain that PHI disclosed in accordance with HIPAA may be redisclosed by the recipient and may no longer be protected by HIPAA.
  • Clarify that if PHI is used or disclosed for fundraising purposes, individuals will be given a clear and conspicuous opportunity to opt out of future fundraising communications.
  • Remove reproductive health language that was added under prior rules that have since been withdrawn.

As part of this update, covered entities should also consider whether other NPP language should be revised in light of operational or legal changes since the document was last updated.

Other HIPAA Documentation to Review

Revisions to the NPP may require corresponding updates to other elements of your HIPAA compliance program, including:

  • Policies and procedures: Internal HIPAA policies should be amended to reflect the NPP.
  • Training: HIPAA training programs should be updated to address the new requirements.
  • Business Associate Agreements (BAAs): BAAs should be reviewed and revised as needed to ensure consistency with HIPAA and the updated NPP.

Next Steps

  • Review and update your Notice of Privacy Practices to comply with the new HIPAA requirements.
  • Assess related policies, training, materials, and BAAs for consistency.
  • Distribute the revised NPP in a timely manner, as required by HIPAA.

For questions or assistance with HIPAA compliance, including updating your NPP, contact a member of Varnum’s employee benefits team.

How Often Should You Update Your Estate Plan?

How Often Should You Update Your Estate Plan?

One of the most common questions clients ask after signing their estate plan is how often it should be updated.

There is no expiration date on your estate plan. However, as personal, financial, and legal circumstances change, a plan should be reviewed and revised as needed. The following are eight common situations that warrant an estate plan update:

1. Marriage

If an estate plan was prepared before marriage, it should be reviewed. Individuals may wish to include a spouse or, if assets are to remain separate, clearly document their intent to avoid future disputes.

2. Birth or Adoption of a Child

Many individuals create or revise an estate plan when they become parents. Plans should be updated to include any children, designate guardians, and establish financial protections. Additional planning may be necessary for your children with special needs.

3. Divorce

Divorce often requires significant changes to an estate plan, including revisions to asset distribution and fiduciary appointments. Beneficiary designations for retirement accounts, insurance policies, and financial accounts should also be reviewed and updated.

4. Death or Incapacity of a Key Individual

If a person named in the estate plan, such as a trustee, successor trustee, or beneficiary, dies or becomes unable to fulfill their role, the plan should be reviewed to determine whether updates are necessary.

5. Serious Medical Diagnosis or Cognitive Changes

A serious medical diagnosis or concerns about cognitive decline should prompt a review of estate planning documents. In many cases, updating powers of attorney is advisable, as financial institutions may not accept documents that are several years old.

6. Do-It-Yourself Estate Planning

Individuals who used online or self-prepared estate planning documents may wish to have those documents reviewed by an attorney to confirm they reflect current goals and comply with applicable state law.

7. Significant Financial Changes

Substantial increases or decreases in assets may require adjustments to an estate plan. Changes in wealth may affect tax planning, charitable giving strategies, or how assets are distributed among beneficiaries.

8. Moving to Another State

Relocating to a new state can impact the effectiveness of your plan. States have different laws governing estate planning documents and inheritance, estate, income, and property taxes. After a move, review and update your estate plan and asset titling, and consider re-executing financial and health care powers to facilitate acceptance by local institutions.

Ongoing Review

Even if no major life event has occurred, estate plans should be reviewed approximately every three years. Regular reviews help ensure assets are properly titled, beneficiary designations remain accurate, and legal documents remain current.

If you are interested in retaining us to update your estate plan, we invite you to connect with a member of our Estate Planning Practice Team to discuss a potential engagement.

Varnum Secures Major Victory in Michigan Behavioral Health Litigation

Varnum Secures Major Victory in Michigan Behavioral Health Litigation

Varnum partner Sarah Wixson and attorney Jordan Valentine, along with co-counsel from Miller Johnson (Neil Marchand), Taft (Christopher Ryan), and Secrest Wardle (Chris Cooke), helped secure a major victory in the Michigan Court of Claims involving $6 billion in state-administered behavioral health funding, including Medicaid. The court ruled that the State of Michigan’s Request for Proposal (RFP) for behavioral health services violates Michigan’s Mental Health Code.

Following three days of testimony in December 2025, Judge Christopher P. Yates granted partial summary disposition to Plaintiffs, finding that the RFP “impermissibly conflicts with Michigan law in numerous respects” by restricting Community Mental Health Service Programs (CMHSPs) from fulfilling their statutorily mandated duties. The Court found the RFP bars CMHSPs from entering into financial contracts necessary to provide crisis intervention, recipient rights protections, preadmission screening, and other services required under Michigan law.

The litigation challenged the State’s attempt to restructure Michigan’s behavioral health system through a competitive procurement process that would have reduced the system from 10 regional service areas to three larger regions. Issued in August 2025, the RFP would have fundamentally altered how behavioral health services are delivered to some of Michigan’s most vulnerable residents.

Plaintiffs argued that the RFP unlawfully stripped CMHSPs of their ability to coordinate care and maintain provider networks, despite statutory mandates requiring them to provide comprehensive behavioral health services regardless of an individual’s ability to pay. The court agreed, noting that Medicaid funding constitutes up to 95% of CMHSP budgets and is essential to their ability to meet those legal obligations.

The case was defended by attorneys representing the State of Michigan and its departments.

Wixson is a litigation partner and Co‑Chair of Varnum’s Health Care Practice Team, representing health care providers and organizations in complex commercial disputes and advising on compliance, regulatory, and contracting matters. She has been recognized by Crain’s Detroit Business as a Notable Woman in Law, by Michigan Lawyers Weekly as an Influential Woman of Law, and by DBusiness as a Top Lawyer in health care law.

Valentine is an attorney on Varnum’s Litigation and ADR Practice Team. She represents clients in a variety of disputes, including shareholder, breach of contract, and real estate zoning matters, and advises on regulatory compliance throughout litigation, from hearings and depositions to trial and appellate proceedings.

New Year, New Benefits Considerations

New Year, New Benefits Considerations

Many provisions of H.R. 1, formerly known as or nicknamed the “One Big Beautiful Bill Act” (the Act), are effective as of January 1, 2026. Employers should review their benefit plans, update related processes, and refresh employee communications to reflect these changes. Below are a few highlights of key updates, including changes to Health Savings Account (HSA) and Flexible Spending Account (FSA) rules, employer credits and taxable benefits, and revisions to Affordable Care Act (ACA) Marketplace and Medicaid eligibility.

High Deductible Health Plans and HSAs

The Act expands HSA eligibility and adds flexibility for high-deductible health plans (HDHPs). HDHPs are now permitted to cover telehealth services before the deductible, retroactive for all plan years beginning after December 31, 2024.

Effective January 1, 2026, direct primary care arrangements may be paired with an HDHP without disqualifying the individual from HSA participation, provided certain requirements are met. To qualify, monthly membership fees may not exceed $150 for single coverage and $300 for employee-plus-dependent coverage. For these purposes, direct primary care generally excludes coverage for most prescription drugs, certain laboratory services, and procedures requiring general anesthesia.

Also, effective January 1, 2026, Bronze and Catastrophic health plans offered through the ACA Marketplace are treated as HDHPs, allowing enrolled individuals to contribute to HSAs.

Tax-Advantaged Accounts and Contribution Limits

The Act increases the annual contribution limit for dependent care FSAs from $5,000 to $7,500 (or $3,750 for married individuals filing separately), effective January 1, 2026. Dependent care FSA funds may be used for child care, elder care, medical, dental, and vision expenses. Employers should review cafeteria plan documents and election materials to ensure limits and eligible expense descriptions are updated.

Employer Tax Credits and Incentives

The Act increases the maximum employer-provided child care tax credit from $150,000 to $500,000, indexed for inflation, or $600,000 for eligible small businesses. It also raises the creditable percentage of qualified expenses from 25 percent to 40 percent, effective for amounts paid or incurred on or after January 1, 2026.

The paid family and medical leave tax credit has been extended and can be claimed either on wages paid during qualifying leave or on qualifying insurance premiums. Generally, employers may claim a credit between 12.5 percent and 50 percent for up to 12 weeks of wages for qualifying employees. The minimum service requirement for a qualifying employee has been reduced from one year to six months.

In addition, Section 127 of the Internal Revenue Code, governing employer-provided student loan repayment and tuition assistance, continues to allow tax-free student loan repayments or assistance of up to $5,250 per employee annually, with inflation adjustments beginning in 2027. Employers may limit eligibility to employees actively repaying student loans or require repayment if an employee leaves within a specified period.

Fringe Benefit Taxation Changes

Employer moving expense reimbursements, previously excludable from income, are now taxable beginning with tax years after 2025. These amounts must be included as taxable income, a change that may be particularly significant for employers with expatriate employees or executives who relocate for work.

ACA Marketplace Subsidies and Medicaid Eligibility Changes

The Act tightens aspects of the ACA premium tax credit (PTC) framework. The PTC is a subsidy that limits individual or household premium costs for ACA Marketplace coverage to a percentage of income, with advance payments made to insurers to reduce monthly payments. Eligibility for the PTC generally depends on income, affordability of employer coverage, government health insurance program eligibility, tax filing status, and dependent status.

Effective January 1, 2026, any excess advance PTC must be fully repaid, and PTC is unavailable during certain enrollment periods. Beginning in 2028, individuals must complete annual verification to maintain eligibility for the credit.

Executive Compensation Limits and Employer Reporting Thresholds

For publicly held corporations, the $1 million deduction limit on covered executive compensation applies on an aggregate basis across controlled group members, limiting total deductible compensation when executives receive pay from multiple affiliated entities.

With a new year underway, employers may wish to take a fresh look at their employee benefits programs.  For questions about how these changes may affect your organization or for assistance navigating new deductions and compliance obligations under the Act, contact your Varnum attorney or a member of our Employee Benefits Practice Team.

Reminder: Michigan Minimum Wage Increase Effective January 1

Michigan employers should note that a new minimum wage increase takes effect January 1, 2026. Under legislation passed in February 2025, the minimum hourly wage will rise to $13.73 per hour on January 1.

Beginning January 1, 2026, the minimum wage for tipped employees will increase to 40 percent of the standard minimum wage, $5.49 per hour, continuing a phased-in schedule in future years.

Employers should review payroll practices, budgeting, and compliance policies now to prepare for the upcoming changes. Additional increases are scheduled for 2027 and beyond, with future adjustments tied to inflation.

For questions about compliance or how these changes may affect your workforce, please contact your Varnum labor and employment attorney.

NHTSA Seeks Comments on Updating 5-Star Safety Ratings Program

NHTSA Seeks Comments on Updating 5-Star Safety Ratings Program

On Friday, December 5, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) published a notice and request for comments on a new information collection program pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (the PRA). The notice reaffirms that NHTSA is proceeding with research regarding updates to the 5-Star Safety Ratings Program, also known as the New Car Assessment Program (NCAP). Although NCAP is primarily a consumer-facing program, any changes to its rating structure or required vehicle labeling have significant implications for vehicle manufacturers and suppliers.

Congressional Requirements for Vehicle Labels

The Safety Through Informed Consumers Act of 2015, part of the larger Fixing America’s Surface Transportation Act of 2015, requires NHTSA to issue a rule to place crash avoidance information next to crashworthiness information on the stickers that manufacturers place on motor vehicles. While crash avoidance information is available on NHTSA’s website, the agency has not yet updated the 5-Star Safety Ratings information on the Monroney label.

Delays in Modernizing Safety Ratings

For more than a decade, NHTSA has worked to modernize the design of the safety ratings at the point of sale. Shifts in administration can cause delays, as each new administration seeks to align the program with its policies. However, the primary cause of delay stems from NHTSA’s interactions with the Office of Management and Budget’s Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA). OIRA can delay NHTSA rulemakings, research, and information collections for years, even when NHTSA is seeking to implement congressionally mandated rules and programs.

Next Steps for Suppliers and Manufacturers

Completing the research that OIRA, not a statute, requires is a critical step toward updating the safety information on vehicle labels. The substantive updates NHTSA made to NCAP last year, combined with a label change, would directly affect how manufacturers present crashworthiness and crash avoidance data at the point of sale and how consumers view their products. Once the research is complete, rulemaking will follow to update the regulatory requirements for Monroney label content, making early preparation essential for OEMs and suppliers involved in vehicle safety systems.

Engaging in NHTSA’s request for comments is an important opportunity to shape future requirements and ensure technical and operational feasibility. For questions, contact Varnum’s mobility attorneys.

Eco-Conscious Estate Planning and Natural Burial Options

Eco-Conscious Estate Planning

With more people seeking sustainable and meaningful end-of-life options, eco-conscious estate planning and natural burial are growing in popularity. These approaches integrate principles of sustainability, legacy, and care for future generations into the estate planning process.

Eco-Conscious Planning Options

Personal values can play a significant role in estate planning. Many individuals pursuing eco-conscious estate planning choose to:

  • Direct part of their estate to environmental nonprofits, land trusts, or conservation organizations.
  • Create a donor-advised fund to support environmental or conservation projects.
  • Include instructions about how to divide, distribute, repurpose, and steward their tangible assets, such as heirloom tools.

Landowners with ecologically significant property can generate a charitable deduction by:

  • Placing land under a conservation easement, or
  • Adding deed restrictions to preserve the land for nature or public access.

Natural Burial: A Sustainable Option

Another eco-conscious choice is a natural burial, often referred to as a “green burial.” This involves burying loved ones without using non-biodegradable material such as embalming fluid, metal or lacquered caskets, or cement vaults. Instead, natural burials use:

  • Biodegradable materials such as cotton clothing and natural fibers.
  • Simple or sustainably sourced wooden caskets.

Natural burials often take place in:

  • Natural burial grounds designed around eco-conscious practices.
  • Conservation cemeteries protected by a permanent conservation easement.
  • Designated natural-burial sections within traditional cemeteries.
  • Private burial grounds, such as family cemeteries (permits and approvals required).

Natural burial is steadily regaining popularity across the U.S. According to the National Funeral Directors Association, almost two-thirds of Americans would consider natural burial, up from half just five years ago.

Estate Planning That Aligns with Personal Values

Sustainability-minded individuals have many options for eco-conscious estate planning and end-of-life planning. Our attorneys help clients incorporate personal values into their estate plans through creative strategies that reflect their environmental and ethical priorities.

To design an estate plan that aligns with your values, contact our Estate Planning Practice Team for guidance.

2025 summer associate Tony Mayotte contributed to this advisory. Tony is currently a student at the University of Michigan Law School.