Michigan Attorney General Mike Cox Sets Record on Consumer Protection; More Than $31 Million Collected in First Three Years

7 February 2006

Attorney General Mike Cox announced today that, after just three years in office, his office has recovered $15,751,638 more money for the State of Michigan than the previous administration did in the entire 4-year term -- more, in fact, than any previous four-year period in Michigan history.

"From Day One, my office has vigorously protected consumers, stood up for their interests and fought for all the monies owed them," Cox said. "The record-setting amounts of monies recovered for both Michigan consumers and the State of Michigan by the dedicated professionals on staff prove that," Cox said.

In addition, Attorney General Mike Cox's average yearly recovery for Michigan consumers is 48% higher than the previous administration's recoveries. Moreover, in three years, Attorney General Mike Cox has recovered more money ($9,215,819) for Michigan consumers than the previous administration recovered in four years ($8,300,287).

Cox also set the record straight regarding item pricing.

"Historically, item pricing investigations have been done jointly between the Michigan Department of Agriculture and the Attorney General's office. That was true when Governor Engler's administration worked with both Attorneys General Kelley and Granholm. I am a ready partner to work with the Governor's administration in enforcing Michigan's item pricing law," Cox said.

"But I will not stand idly by when the professional and dedicated attorneys in my office are attacked. These are, in many cases, the same attorneys who worked with Attorneys General Frank Kelley and Jennifer Granholm to prosecute item pricing in previous years," Cox added.

"Our office was specifically told that the Governor has requested the Department of Agriculture to step up inspections at gas stations, necessitating a redirection of staff, so that the department no longer had the resources to join with the Attorney General's office in any joint projects.

"The administration made a policy decision to redirect staff because of other priorities. Our office does not question the administration's right to set or change priorities. But, I will not have this office criticized for not going forward with item pricing when the very people making the criticism are the same ones who have told this office there are no projects they can work jointly with us on at this time," Cox noted.

"The chronology is critical. In March of 2004, attorneys in the Consumer Protection division of the Attorney General's Office identified a target for item pricing enforcement and contacted representatives of the Michigan Department of Agriculture to request joint item pricing enforcement efforts," Cox stated. "That target was Wal-Mart."

"In June of 2004, the Department of Agriculture rejected joint item pricing enforcement with my Consumer Protection attorneys in a written response, citing diversion of resources.

"In November of 2005, attorneys in the Consumer Protection Division of the Attorney General's office again requested joint enforcement of item pricing with the Department of Agriculture.

"One month later, in December of 2005, the Department of Agriculture agreed to cooperate with us in a joint item pricing enforcement. Further, the Department of Agriculture agreed to identify future targets for investigation for joint item pricing enforcement. However, the Department of Agriculture never identified any target.

"Then, last week, a newspaper article appeared that was critical of this office's efforts toward enforcement of Michigan's item pricing law.

"Curiously, after that same article was published, our office received a communication from the Department of Agriculture finally supplying recommended targets for joint item pricing enforcement.

"The record of this office is clear when it comes to Consumer Protection -- we have collected more money, more quickly, on behalf of Michigan consumers, and the State of Michigan, than any Attorney General in Michigan history. And we will continue to expand on those accomplishments.

"And, with regard to enforcement of Michigan's item pricing law, the record also makes clear that the Attorney General's office has consistently, over a multi-year period, taken the lead in both identifying targets and requesting joint item pricing enforcement with the Department of Agriculture.

"My office will continue to aggressively protect consumers from scam artists, we will continue to take the lead in issuing consumer alerts, and we will investigate all types of consumer schemes -- whether it's Internet abuses, identity thieves who prey on Michigan citizens, or any other type of countless consumer rip-offs, including item pricing," Cox concluded.

Source: prnewswire

All trademarks and copyrighted information contained herein are the property of their respective owners.