Whether Michigan citizens are required to make a payment to be protected under the Michigan Consumer Protection Act

QUESTIONS PRESENTED Plaintiff alleged that the public — over four billion including Petitioner Martin Leaf-were exposed to a deceptive subliminal and subtle five-minute Nike animated soccer advertisement/video (“The Last Game”), targeting primarily minors because it is animated. It allegedly contains Nazi Jew-hating messages and symbols, sexual, and terrorist content all hidden as “Easter eggs” — the fad of hiding content people look for frame by frame. It also allegedly contains subtle Nazi Jew Hating themes, such as the Jews are controlling everything and ruining the world for everyone, and that if you buy Nike gear you can be a manly Christian hero that saves the world from the evil Jews. After Petitioner watched the Nike Ad/video, and investigated, Petitioner alleges The Last Game’s lead animator Connor Ryan was one of those responsible for most of the offensive Easter Eggs, and the other offensive content substantially hidden. Connor Ryan posted on social media a picture of himself as Hitler, posts images of penises, posts pictures of Jews as snakes, posts images with swastikas, posts images with dual perception, such as a face that can be perceived two different ways, and advocated for the assassination of former President Trump, etc. This type of content is allegedly hidden in The Last Game. The Questions Presented are: 1. Whether Michigan citizens, especially children are required to make a payment in what amounts to “protection money” in order to be protected under the Michigan Consumer Protection Act, MCL § 445.901 et. seq. (““MCPA”), thereby denying countless harmful “transactions” from protection when businesses engage ii in unlawful deceptive conduct. In this case Petitioner alleged through an expert affidavit that viewing the hidden subliminal content can change behavior and beliefs without the viewer being aware. Controlling Michigan precedent indicates the MCPA covers free transactions. 2. Whether content on the internet is immune from violations of the MCPA, despite the MCPA clearly stating otherwise, and even when not pled as a defense by Defendants as required by the MCPA. Because Nike and Wieden + Kennedy are content providers they are in violation of the MCPA. 3. Whether a Plaintiff who will view non-deceptive completely disclosed subliminal and subtle offensive content has forfeited his right to sue under the MCPA for having earlier viewed the same content that was not completely disclosed. To hold otherwise rewards partial disclosure, prohibited under the MCPA. 4. Whether as a matter of law a heightened standard of pleading under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 9(b) applies to “State of Mind” such as “Plaintiff would not have viewed the media” or “Plaintiff would not have viewed the media without avoiding the subliminal content.” This in light of the specific language of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 9(b) that state of mind is excluded from such heightened standards of pleading. 5. Whether the Court of Appeals’ disregard of this Court’s instruction that “a federal appellate court does not consider an issue not passed upon below” (Singleton v. Wulff, 428 U.S. 106, 120 (1976)) warrants summary reversal of the Court of Appeals’ decision and remand for consideration by an impartial and unbiased District Court Judge, and to be sent to the Supreme Court of Michigan as certified questions.