forth in Rule 432.1839, the MGCB specifically authorized defendants to operate the slot machines at issue in this case. Whether the specific misconduct alleged— defendants’ misrepresentation of the chances of winning a large payoff on the “bonus wheel” — is illegal or prohibited by the MGCB is irrelevant to the determination whether the transaction or conduct was specifically authorized by the MGCB. Smith, supra at 465. Therefore, MCL 445.904(l)(a) applies in this case and defendants are exempt from plaintiffs MCPA claims. We are not persuaded that Baker v Arbor Drugs, Inc, 215 Mich App 198, 207; 544 NW2d 727 (1996), requires us to reach a different conclusion. In Baker, the defendant pharmacy advertised that its computer system would prevent adverse drug inter 181; 413 NW2d 17 (1987) (<HOLDING>). Because our Supreme Court has in certain
holding that the plaintiff an exclusive licensee of the mark had standing to bring a claim under  43a holding that when chapter 95 applies it is the plaintiffs exclusive remedy and precludes common law negligence liability holding that a claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress was preempted where it arose out of the same conduct as a preempted contract claim holding that the dramshop act mcl 43622  affords the exclusive remedy for injuries arising out of an unlawful sale giving away or furnishing of intoxicants thereby preempting all commonlaw actions arising out of these circumstances holding that plaintiffs negligence claim which arose out of the selling giving or furnishing of alcoholic liquor by a liquor licensee is preempted by the exclusive remedy of the dramshop act