Sec. 5. (1) As of the effective date of this act, no existing franchise agreement with a franchising entity shall be renewed or extended upon the expiration date of the agreement. (2) The incumbent video provider, at its option, may continue to provide video services to the franchising entity by electing to do 1 of the following: (a) Terminate the existing franchise agreement before the expiration date of the agreement and enter into a new franchise under a uniform video service local franchise agreement. (b) Continue under the existing franchise agreement amended to include only those provisions required under a uniform video service local franchise. (c) Continue to operate under the terms of an expired franchise until a uniform video service local franchise agreement takes effect. An incumbent video provider has 120 days after the effective date of this act to file for a uniform video service local franchise agreement. (3) On the effective date of this act, any provisions of an existing franchise that are inconsistent with or in addition to the provisions of a uniform video service local franchise agreement are unreasonable and unenforceable by the franchising entity. (4) If a franchising entity authorizes 2 or more video service providers through an existing franchise, a uniform video service local franchise agreement, or an agreement under section 13, the franchising entity shall not enforce any term, condition, or requirement of any franchise agreement that is more burdensome than the terms, conditions, or requirements contained in another franchise agreement.
Mich. Comp. Laws § 484.3305
Renewal or extension of existing franchise agreement; unreasonable and unenforceable provisions; burdensome terms, conditions, or requirements
Applied in 3 court decisions — leading case 771 F. Supp. 2d 781 - City of Detroit v. Comcast of Detroit, Inc. (2011)
Most recently applied in 879 F. Supp. 2d 680 - City of Detroit v. Michigan (July 2012)
2006, Act 480, Eff
How often courts cite this section
Court decisions citing this, by year. The dip in the last several years is a data-coverage gap, not a real trend — our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so recent citations are undercounted.
Official source: Michigan Legislature. Reproduced from public-domain Michigan statutes; confirm against the official source for the current text. Not legal advice.