¶¶ 52-54. Pandora argues that Plaintiffs MCPA claim should be dismissed on the grounds that Pandora is exempt from liability under the MCPA’s safe harbor provision, and that Plaintiff cannot maintain a class action under the MCPA absent a showing of actual damages. The Court discusses each contention in turn. 1. Safe Harbor Section 445.904 of the MCPA provides that “this act does not apply to ... a transaction or conduct specifically authorized under laws administered by a regulatory board or officer acting under statutory authority of this state or the United States.” MCL § 445.904 (emphasis added). The focus of this exemption is on the “general transaction at issue,” as opposed to the specific misconduct alleged. See Molosky v. Wash. Mut., Inc., 664 F.3d 109, 117-118 (6th Cir.2011) (<HOLDING>) (citing Liss v. Lewiston-Richards, Inc., 478
holding article 9 inapplicable to an assignment of a mortgage on real estate holding witness not licensed as real estate appraiser could not testify as expert on real estate valuation where statute made it unlawful to engage in real estate appraisal without license holding that granteepurchasers who acquired real estate subject to an existing mortgage while not personally lia ble did take real estate charged with the payment of the debt and such property became the primary fund out of which said mortgage must be paid holding the real estate sale proceeds holding that general authorization to service real estate loans included claims regarding fees for prepayment of mortgage loans