Michigan
Michigan Identity Theft Laws: Penalties and Victim Resources
Independently fact-checked against primary sources (last audited August 14, 2026). · 8 primary sources cited on this page. How we verify our legal content

This page covers identity theft law in Michigan under the Identity Theft Protection Act, Act 452 of 2004 (MCL 445.61 through 445.79d), plus the state's restitution rules, its narrow civil-action provision, and the Attorney General's Michigan Identity Theft Support program. It does not cover federal identity theft law in depth; for that layer, see our identity theft laws hub and our guide to reporting identity theft.
Michigan's Identity Theft Protection Act
Michigan's Identity Theft Protection Act, Act 452 of 2004, prohibits identity theft in two overlapping ways under MCL 445.65. First, with intent to defraud or violate the law, using or attempting to use another person's personal identifying information to obtain credit, goods, services, money, property, vital records, telephone records, medical records, or employment, or to commit any other unlawful act. Second, doing the same thing by concealing, withholding, or misrepresenting the person's identity. Four affirmative defenses apply specifically to the second category: bona fide gifts, lawful pursuit of legal rights, authorization by law or court order, and consent when not for an unlawful purpose.
MCL 445.69 makes a violation of either prohibited category a felony, with penalties that escalate by conviction count rather than by dollar value. A first offense carries up to 5 years imprisonment and a fine of up to $25,000. A second offense carries up to 10 years and up to $50,000. A third or subsequent offense carries up to 15 years and up to $75,000. Courts may order a sentence to run consecutively to a sentence for any other crime committed using the same stolen identity information, meaning the prison terms stack rather than run at the same time.
Restitution and the Limits of Civil Recovery
The Identity Theft Protection Act itself contains no restitution provision. MCL 445.69 provides only the felony penalty tiers and consecutive-sentencing authority. Restitution instead comes from Michigan's general Crime Victim's Rights Act, MCL 780.766, which mandates full restitution for any felony conviction, including one under the Identity Theft Protection Act: the court shall order that the defendant make full restitution to any victim.

Civil recovery is narrower than in some states. The Act does not create a broad private lawsuit right for a typical identity theft victim against the person who stole their identity. MCL 445.71(3) preserves rather than creates civil remedies, providing that the criminal penalty subsection above it «does not prohibit a person from being liable for any civil remedy» for a violation of the Act, the Michigan Consumer Protection Act, or any other state or federal law. Two other parts of the same section do create liability outright: under MCL 445.71(1)(b) and (1)(c), a lender or credit card issuer that solicits credit through an unsolicited check or an unsolicited credit card is itself liable for the amount of the instrument, and for related fees and charges, if an unauthorized user uses it. MCL 445.72(15) is pure preservation and is narrower still, saying only that «subsections (12) and (13) do not affect the availability of any civil remedy for a violation of state or federal law,» with no reference to the Michigan Consumer Protection Act.
The one explicit civil-action provision in the Act, MCL 445.67a(3), lets the Attorney General or a harmed internet service provider sue over phishing or spoofing violations. MCL 445.67a(5) then gives that plaintiff an election, not a menu: actual damages including reasonable attorney fees, or, in lieu of actual damages, reasonable attorney fees plus the lesser of $5,000 per violation or $250,000 for each day that a violation occurs. The two dollar figures are read together as a ceiling, so the smaller of them caps the recovery. That right reaches internet service providers and the state, not the ordinary identity theft victim suing their thief directly.
Michigan's Protected-Consumer Credit Freeze Law
Michigan's credit freeze law is real, but it does not live in the Identity Theft Protection Act. That Act's section index, MCL 445.61 through 445.79d, contains no freeze provision, and its 24 defined terms in MCL 445.63 include no definition of «protected consumer» or «security freeze.» The freeze scheme sits in a separate part of the Michigan Compiled Laws instead, which is why searching only the Identity Theft Protection Act gives the misleading impression that no state freeze right exists.
Under MCL 445.2531, a consumer reporting agency shall place a security freeze on a protected consumer's credit report once a qualifying request is made, and subsection (3) gives the agency 30 days after receiving that request to put the freeze in place. MCL 445.2512(e) defines a protected consumer as an individual who is under 16 years of age at the time the request is made, or an incapacitated person or protected person for whom a guardian or conservator has been appointed under article V of the Estates and Protected Individuals Code.
An adult freeze runs on a faster clock. MCL 445.2521(2) requires a consumer reporting agency to place a security freeze for an adult consumer within 5 business days of a qualifying request, against the 30 days allowed for a protected consumer.
The federal protected-consumer freeze right under 15 U.S.C. Section 1681c-1(j), in place since 2018, runs alongside the Michigan right rather than substituting for an absent one, so a Michigan parent can act under either. See our guide to credit freeze vs. fraud alert for how a freeze works in practice.
Data Breach Notification
MCL 445.72 requires Michigan residents to be notified «without unreasonable delay» of a security breach involving their personal information. This notification duty runs against the business that experienced the breach and is separate from the Identity Theft Protection Act's criminal provisions, but it is often the first sign a Michigan resident has that their information may have been misused.
Michigan Identity Theft Support (MITS)
The Michigan Department of Attorney General runs Michigan Identity Theft Support (MITS), the state's dedicated assistance program. Residents complete a «Request for Identity Theft Assistance» web form, and MITS staff follow up «if they can be of service.» The program is explicit about its limits: «MITS cannot provide personal legal representation.» A companion «What to Do if Your Identity is Stolen» page lays out a six-step plan: confirm the warning signs, identify what was compromised, contact affected financial institutions, check your credit reports and freeze your credit if needed, file an FTC IdentityTheft.gov report or a police report, and then use the MITS form for further help. The page also flags the federal $50 cap under the Electronic Fund Transfer Act on unauthorized ATM or debit card charges, if reported within 60 days. The Consumer Protection division can also be reached at 517-335-7599, or toll-free at 877-765-8388, or by mail at P.O. Box 30213, Lansing, MI 48909.

2025-2026 Legislative Currency: SB 360-364
Senate Bills 360 through 364, introduced in the 2025-2026 legislative session, would substantially rewrite the Identity Theft Protection Act's data-security and breach-notification framework. The package would mandate security procedures and a designated «security coordinator,» create a safe harbor for entities that conform to a recognized cybersecurity framework, add enhanced breach-notice content requirements, require Attorney General notification for breaches affecting 100 or more residents, and impose civil fines ranging from $250 up to $750,000. The package passed the Senate 19 to 15 on August 26, 2025, and as of this page's last verification remains pending in the House Government Operations Committee, meaning it is not yet law and carries no Public Act number.
The Federal Layer
Regardless of state, identity theft is also a federal crime under 18 U.S.C. Section 1028. The Federal Trade Commission's free recovery site, IdentityTheft.gov, walks victims through reporting what happened and building a personal recovery plan. Federal law has also required free credit freezes and free fraud alerts at all three credit bureaus since 2018, and FCRA Section 605B lets a victim with an FTC Identity Theft Report get fraudulent information blocked from their credit report. See our identity theft laws hub for the complete federal picture.

Information last verified on 2026-09-02, drawn directly from MCL 445.65, 445.69, 445.71, 445.72, 445.67a, 445.2512, 445.2521, 445.2531, and 780.766 on legislature.mi.gov, and the Michigan Identity Theft Support program page. This article has not yet been reviewed by a licensed lawyer.
Related Resources
- Identity Theft Laws: Federal Rules and State Penalties
- How to Report Identity Theft
- Credit Freeze vs. Fraud Alert
Last updated: 2026-08-13.
Frequently Asked Questions
Is identity theft a felony in Michigan?
Yes. Under MCL 445.69, a violation of Michigan's Identity Theft Protection Act is a felony carrying up to 5 years and a $25,000 fine for a first offense, up to 10 years and $50,000 for a second offense, and up to 15 years and $75,000 for a third or subsequent offense.
Can I sue the person who stole my identity in Michigan?
Michigan's Identity Theft Protection Act does not create a general civil lawsuit right for the typical victim against their thief. Its only explicit civil-action provision is limited to the Attorney General or a harmed internet service provider suing over phishing or spoofing.
Will I get restitution if my identity thief is convicted in Michigan?
Yes, but through a different statute. Michigan's Crime Victim's Rights Act, MCL 780.766, requires a court to order full restitution for any felony conviction, including identity theft under the Identity Theft Protection Act.
Does Michigan have a minor or child credit freeze law?
Yes. MCL 445.2531 requires a consumer reporting agency to place a security freeze on a protected consumer's credit report, and MCL 445.2512(e) defines a protected consumer as an individual under 16 years of age at the time of the request, or an incapacitated or protected person with a court-appointed guardian or conservator. The agency has 30 days to place a protected-consumer freeze, against 5 business days for an adult freeze under MCL 445.2521(2). The federal right under 15 U.S.C. Section 1681c-1(j) applies alongside it.
What is Michigan Identity Theft Support (MITS)?
MITS is the Michigan Attorney General's identity theft assistance program. Residents submit a web-form request, and staff follow up if they can help, though the program cannot provide personal legal representation. A companion guide lays out a six-step recovery plan.
Are Senate Bills 360-364 law in Michigan yet?
No. As of this page's last verification, the bills passed the Michigan Senate in August 2025 but remain pending in a House committee. They are not yet enacted and carry no Public Act number.
Can my Michigan identity theft sentence be stacked with other charges?
Yes. MCL 445.69 lets a court order an identity theft sentence to run consecutively to a sentence for any other crime committed using the same stolen identity information.
Updates
Corrected the credit freeze section: Michigan does have its own protected-consumer security freeze right under MCL 445.2531, and we also fixed how the page described the civil liability provisions in MCL 445.71 and 445.72 and the damages cap in MCL 445.67a(5).
Independently fact-checked against the cited primary sources
The Law Behind This Article
This article rests on the statutory provisions below, held in our own legal record and retrieved from the official source. Tap a section to read the operative text.
Michigan Compiled Laws
§ 445.65Prohibited acts; violations; defense in civil action or criminal prosecution; burden of proofIn force
(1) A person shall not do any of the following: (a) With intent to defraud or violate the law, use or attempt to use the personal identifying information of another person to do either of the following: (i) Obtain credit, goods, services, money, property, a vital record, a confidential telephone record, medical records or information, or employment. (ii) Commit another unlawful act. (b) By concealing, withholding, or misrepresenting the person's identity, use or attempt to use the personal identifying information of another person to do either of the following: (i) Obtain credit, goods, services, money, property, a vital record, a confidential telephone record, medical records or information, or employment. (ii) Commit another unlawful act. (2) A person who violates subsection (1)(b)(i) may assert 1 or more of the following as a defense in a civil action or as an affirmative defense in a criminal prosecution, and has the burden of proof on that defense by a preponderance of the evidence: (a) That the person gave a bona fide gift for or for the benefit or control of, or use or consumption by, the person whose personal identifying information was used.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-09-02 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at legislature.mi.gov
Cited in 24 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2026
In the courts (editorial summary, independently checked):Michigan courts have construed MCL 445.65. People of Michigan v. David Joseph Miller (2019) read "obtain" to reach continuing to receive a service using another's information and rejected a vagueness challenge to subsection (1); People v. Perry (2016) held nothing in the section requires the victim to be actually defrauded.
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- People of Michigan v. David Joseph Miller (Michigan Court of Appeals 2019, 326 Mich. App. 719)✓A man kept electric service running on a utility account carrying his ex-wife's name and Social Security number; the court held that obtaining services under MCL 445.65(1)(a)(i) covers continuing to attain service with another's information, not just opening the account.
- People v. Perry (Michigan Court of Appeals 2016, 317 Mich. App. 589)✓A car buyer handed over counterfeit bills while presenting another man's driver's license; the court held nothing in MCL 445.65(1) requires that the victim actually be defrauded, so using the license with intent to defraud supported the identity theft conviction.
- People of Michigan v. Sabrina Racine Parker (Michigan Court of Appeals 2017)“…appeals by leave granted her guilty plea to identity theft, MCL 445.65, and conspiracy to steal and retain a f…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
§ 445.69Certain violations as felony; penalty; consecutive sentences; defense in civil action or criminal prosecution; burden of proof; exceptionIn force
(1) Subject to subsection (6), a person who violates section 5 or 7 is guilty of a felony punishable as follows: (a) Except as otherwise provided in subdivisions (b) and (c), by imprisonment for not more than 5 years or a fine of not more than $25,000.00, or both. (b) If the violation is a second violation of section 5 or 7, by imprisonment for not more than 10 years or a fine of not more than $50,000.00, or both. (c) If the violation is a third or subsequent violation of section 5 or 7, by imprisonment for not more than 15 years or a fine of not more than $75,000.00, or both. (2) Sections 5 and 7 apply whether an individual who is a victim or intended victim of a violation of 1 of those sections is alive or deceased at the time of the violation. (3) This section does not prohibit a person from being charged with, convicted of, or sentenced for any other violation of law committed by that person using information obtained in violation of this section or any other violation of law committed by that person while violating or attempting to violate this section.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-30 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at legislature.mi.gov
Cited in 3 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2026
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- People of Michigan v. Alexander James Horton (Michigan Court of Appeals 2023)“…to one count of identity theft, second offense, MCL 445.65; MCL 445.69(1)(b). The trial court imposed a senten…”
- People of Michigan v. Candace Nicole Murry (Michigan Court of Appeals 2026)“…28.293(1), and identity theft, MCL 445.65, second offense, MCL 445.69.1 The trial court sentenced defendant a…”
- People of Michigan v. Marsha Sharlene Rutherford (Michigan Court of Appeals 2019)“…arks and citation omitted). The parties do not dispute that MCL 445.69(4) gave the trial court discretion to i…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
§ 445.67aProhibited acts; interactive computer service provider not liable for certain actions; civil action by attorney general or interactive computer service provider; exception; recovery of damages; investigationIn force
(1) A person shall not do any of the following: (a) Make any electronic mail or other communication under false pretenses purporting to be by or on behalf of a business, without the authority or approval of the business, and use that electronic mail or other communication to induce, request, or solicit any individual to provide personal identifying information. (b) Create or operate a webpage that represents itself as belonging to or being associated with a business, without the authority or approval of that business, and induces, requests, or solicits any user of the internet to provide personal identifying information. (c) Alter a setting on a user's computer or similar device or software program through which the user may access the internet and cause any user of the internet to view a communication that represents itself as belonging to or being associated with a business, which message has been created or is operated without the authority or approval of that business, and induces, requests, or solicits any user of the internet to provide personal identifying information.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-30 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at legislature.mi.gov
Cited in 1 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2019
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Adam Nyman v. Thomson Reuters Holdings Inc (Michigan Court of Appeals 2019)“…example is found in the Identity Theft Protection Act under MCL 445.67a(5), which allows a person to sue for re…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
§ 445.71Prohibited acts in conduct of trade or commerce; violation as misdemeanor; penalty; civil liabilityIn force
(1) A person shall not do any of the following in the conduct of trade or commerce: (a) Deny credit or public utility service to or reduce the credit limit of a consumer solely because the consumer was a victim of identity theft, if the person had prior knowledge that the consumer was a victim of identity theft. A consumer is presumed to be a victim of identity theft for the purposes of this subdivision if he or she provides both of the following to the person: (i) A copy of a police report evidencing the claim of the victim of identity theft. (ii) Either a properly completed copy of a standardized affidavit of identity theft developed and made available by the federal trade commission under 15 USC 1681g or an affidavit of fact that is acceptable to the person for that purpose. (b) Solicit to extend credit to a consumer who does not have an existing line of credit, or has not had or applied for a line of credit within the preceding year, through the use of an unsolicited check that includes personal identifying information other than the recipient's name, address, and a partial, encoded, or truncated personal identifying number.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-30 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at legislature.mi.gov
Cited in 1 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2025
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Angus v. Flagstar Bank, FSB (District Court, E.D. Michigan 2025)“…e a claim based upon violation of Section 11 of the MITPA, Mich. Comp. Laws §445.71 (concerning the denial of credit to a v…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
§ 445.72Notice of security breach; requirementsIn forcecited in 7 of our articles
(1) Unless the person or agency determines that the security breach has not or is not likely to cause substantial loss or injury to, or result in identity theft with respect to, 1 or more residents of this state, a person or agency that owns or licenses data that are included in a database that discovers a security breach, or receives notice of a security breach under subsection (2), shall provide a notice of the security breach to each resident of this state who meets 1 or more of the following: (a) That resident's unencrypted and unredacted personal information was accessed and acquired by an unauthorized person. (b) That resident's personal information was accessed and acquired in encrypted form by a person with unauthorized access to the encryption key.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-08-28 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at legislature.mi.gov
Cited in 8 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2025
In the courts (editorial summary, independently checked):Federal courts differ on private enforcement. In re Target Corp. Customer Data Security Breach Litigation (2014) read subsection (15) to imply consumers may sue through Michigan's consumer protection act. Angus v. Flagstar Bank, FSB (2025) held that a 445.72 violation cannot support an MCPA claim.
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- In re Target Corp. Customer Data Security Breach Litigation (District Court, D. Minnesota 2014, 66 F. Supp. 3d 1154)✓Hackers took card and personal data of roughly 110 million Target shoppers; on a motion to dismiss the court read the subsection preserving other civil remedies as implying consumers may enforce the section 445.72 notice duty through other Michigan laws.
- In re Equifax, Inc. (District Court, N.D. Georgia 2019, 362 F. Supp. 3d 1295)✓Hackers took the personal data of nearly 150 million people from Equifax; following Target, the court declined to dismiss the section 445.72 claim for lack of a private right of action, relying on the subsection preserving other civil remedies.
- Negron v. Ascension Health (District Court, E.D. Missouri 2025)“…XVI. Michigan Identity Theft Protection Act, Mich. Comp. Laws § 445.72 XVII. Michigan Consumer Protection A…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: Michigan Data Privacy Laws: Consumer Rights & Protections (2026), Michigan Data Breach Notification Laws: Reporting Rules & Timelines (2026), Michigan Biometric Privacy Laws: Collection, Consent & Penalties (2026)
§ 780.766"Victim" defined; restitution; order; condition of probation, parole, or sentence; revocation of probation or parole; petition to modify payment method; lien; enforcement; failure to pay restitution; payment by parent of juvenile; definitions; review; report or petition; compliance; copy of order to department of corrections; disposition of unclaimed restitution; amendment of order; effect of bankruptcy; victim as minorIn force
(1) As used in this section only, "victim" means an individual who suffers direct or threatened physical, financial, or emotional harm as a result of the commission of a crime. As used in subsections (2), (3), (6), (8), (9), and (13) only, victim includes a sole proprietorship, partnership, corporation, association, governmental entity, or any other legal entity that suffers direct physical or financial harm as a result of a crime. (2) Except as provided in subsection (8), when sentencing a defendant convicted of a crime, the court shall order, in addition to or in lieu of any other penalty authorized by law or in addition to any other penalty required by law, that the defendant make full restitution to any victim of the defendant's course of conduct that gives rise to the conviction or to the victim's estate. For an offense that is resolved by assignment of the defendant to youthful trainee status, by a delayed sentence or deferred judgment of guilt, or in another way that is not an acquittal or unconditional dismissal, the court shall order the restitution required under this section.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-30 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at legislature.mi.gov
Cited in 158 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2026
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- PEOPLE v. McKINLEY (Michigan Supreme Court 2014, 496 Mich. 410)“…ion scheme have arisen since the Legislature’s enactment of MCL 780.766(2) and after Gahan was decided. T…”
- People v. Grant (Michigan Supreme Court 1997, 455 Mich. 221)“…ourse of conduct that gives rise to the conviction . . . .” MCL 780.766(2); MSA 28.1287(766)(2). 19…”
- People v. Corbin (Michigan Court of Appeals 2015, 312 Mich. App. 352)“…t’s course of conduct that gives rise to the conviction[.]” MCL 780.766(2). A “victim” is “an individual who su…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
§ 445.63DefinitionsIn forcecited in 7 of our articles
As used in this act: (a) "Agency" means a department, board, commission, office, agency, authority, or other unit of state government of this state. The term includes an institution of higher education of this state. The term does not include a circuit, probate, district, or municipal court. (b) "Breach of the security of a database" or "security breach" means the unauthorized access and acquisition of data that compromises the security or confidentiality of personal information maintained by a person or agency as part of a database of personal information regarding multiple individuals. These terms do not include unauthorized access to data by an employee or other individual if the access meets all of the following: (i) The employee or other individual acted in good faith in accessing the data. (ii) The access was related to the activities of the agency or person. (iii) The employee or other individual did not misuse any personal information or disclose any personal information to an unauthorized person. (c) "Child or spousal support" means support for a child or spouse, paid or provided pursuant to state or federal law under a court order or judgment.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-30 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at legislature.mi.gov
Cited in 5 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2026
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- People v. Perry (Michigan Court of Appeals 2016, 317 Mich. App. 589)“…license or state personal identification card number . . .” MCL 445.63(q). Circumstantial evidence and reasona…”
- Michigan Federation of Teachers & School Related Personnel v. University of Michigan (Michigan Supreme Court 2008, 481 Mich. 657)“…very type of information sought by plaintiff in this case. MCL 445.63(o). See also, e.g., Identity Theft and…”
- Deidre Goldsmith v. Faith Hope & Love Outreach Center Inc (Michigan Court of Appeals 2026)“…d for the purpose of identifying a specific person . . . .” MCL 445.63(q). Defendants argue that the…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
§ 445.61Short titleIn forcecited in 7 of our articles
This act shall be known and may be cited as the "identity theft protection act".
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-30 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at legislature.mi.gov
Cited in 4 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2026
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Michigan Federation of Teachers & School Related Personnel v. University of Michigan (Michigan Supreme Court 2008, 481 Mich. 657)“…ure enacted 2004 PA 452, the Identity Theft Protection Act, MCL 445.61 et seq., whose title states, among othe…”
- Deidre Goldsmith v. Faith Hope & Love Outreach Center Inc (Michigan Court of Appeals 2026)“…ing identity theft under the Identity Theft Protection Act, MCL 445.61 et seq., forfeiture of property under M…”
- Keffer Development Services, LLC v. Hartford Casualty Insurance Company (District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania 2026)“…ations Act; (4) the Michigan Identity Theft Protection Act (MCL 445.61 et seq.); and (5) Ohio data security l…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
United States Code Title 18
§ 1028Fraud and related activity in connection with identification documents, authentication features, and informationIn forcecited in 17 of our articles
Whoever, in a circumstance described in subsection (c) of this section— knowingly and without lawful authority produces an identification document, authentication feature, or a false identification document; knowingly transfers an identification document, authentication feature, or a false identification document knowing that such document or feature was stolen or produced without lawful authority; knowingly possesses with intent to use unlawfully or transfer unlawfully five or more identification documents (other than those issued lawfully for the use of the possessor), authentication features, or false identification documents; knowingly possesses an identification document (other than one issued lawfully for the use of the possessor), authentication feature, or a false identification document, with the intent such document or feature be used to defraud the United States; knowingly produces, transfers, or possesses a document-making implement or authentication feature with the intent such document-making implement or authentication feature will be used in the production of a false identification document or another document-making implement or authentication feature which will…
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-09-02 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at uscode.house.gov
Cited in 1,360 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2026
In the courts (editorial summary, independently checked):United States v. Christensen (2016) affirmed Section 1028(a)(7) identity-theft convictions after the CFAA predicates were set aside, holding intent to violate California Penal Code 502 was a valid alternative predicate. United States v. Campa (2008) upheld a 1028(a)(3) conviction on constructive possession of counterfeit documents.
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Flores-Figueroa v. United States (Supreme Court of the United States 2009, 556 U.S. 646)“…tion documents, authentica tion features, and information.” 18 U. S. C. §1028. The title of another provision (the pro…”
- United States v. George Lloyd Pregent (Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit 1999, 190 F.3d 279)“…zed United States identification documents in violation of 18 U.S.C.A. § 1028 (a)(1) (West Supp.1999), knowingly prod…”
- United States v. Lesmarge Valnor (Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit 2006, 451 F.3d 744)✓Valnor charged $400 to $500 a head to have a Florida DMV examiner issue fraudulent driver's licenses; the Eleventh Circuit affirmed a sentence above the advisory range for his Section 1028(f) conspiracy, noting it fell far below Section 1028(b)(1)(A)'s 15-year maximum.
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: Indiana Identity Theft Laws, Identity Theft Laws: Federal Rules and State Penalties, Alabama Identity Theft Laws: Statute, Reporting, and Your Rights
Search our full record of US law — 2.1 million sections, every state + federal →
Sources and References
- MCL 445.65, Identity Theft Protection Act, Prohibited Acts(legislature.mi.gov).gov
- MCL 445.69, Identity Theft Protection Act, Penalty(legislature.mi.gov).gov
- MCL 445.72, Identity Theft Protection Act, Security Breach Notification(legislature.mi.gov).gov
- MCL 445.67a, Identity Theft Protection Act, Phishing and Spoofing Civil Action(legislature.mi.gov).gov
- MCL 780.766, Crime Victim's Rights Act, Mandatory Restitution(legislature.mi.gov).gov
- 2025 Senate Bill 360 (Identity Theft Protection Act Amendments)(legislature.mi.gov).gov
- Michigan Identity Theft Support (MITS), Michigan Department of Attorney General(michigan.gov).gov
- IdentityTheft.gov (Federal Trade Commission)(identitytheft.gov).gov
- 18 U.S.C. Section 1028, Fraud and Related Activity in Connection with Identification Documents (Cornell LII)(law.cornell.edu)
- 15 U.S.C. Section 1681c-1, Identity Theft Prevention; Fraud Alerts and Active Duty Alerts (Cornell LII)(law.cornell.edu)
- MCL 445.2531, Placement of Security Freeze on Protected Consumer’s Credit Report(legislature.mi.gov)
- MCL 445.2512, Security Freeze Definitions (Protected Consumer)(legislature.mi.gov)
- MCL 445.2521, Placement of Security Freeze on Consumer’s Credit Report(legislature.mi.gov)
- MCL 445.71, Identity Theft Protection Act, Prohibited Conduct and Civil Liability(legislature.mi.gov)