November 13, 2026.
Lawsuit seeks to break up alleged monopoly over ferry transportation and parking as Mackinac Island voters overwhelmingly approve expanded city authority to regulate ferry fares and fees. Hoffmann disputes the allegations and says the state lawsuit threatens ongoing mediation.
LANSING, Mich. — Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel has filed an antitrust lawsuit against the Florida-based Hoffmann Family of Companies, alleging the company illegally consolidated control of passenger ferry transportation to Mackinac Island and the long-term parking facilities used by visitors traveling to the island.
The lawsuit, filed November 12 in the 30th Circuit Court in Ingham County, seeks to restore competition in two markets the state considers essential to Mackinac Island's tourism industry, local economy and residents.
The legal action comes just days after Mackinac Island voters overwhelmingly approved a November 3 ballot question expanding the city's authority to regulate ferry fares and related charges, including parking, baggage and priority boarding fees.
More than 90% of voters supported the charter amendment, according to the Fair Access to Mackinac Island Coalition. The vote represents a significant development in the island's ongoing dispute with Hoffmann over ferry pricing, local government authority and the future of transportation to and from the island.
Hoffmann Acquisitions Eliminated Independent Ferry Competition.
According to the Attorney General's office, Hoffmann acquired a controlling interest in Shepler's Mackinac Island Ferry in 2022 and purchased the Arnold Line in 2024.
The history of the acquisitions is important. In 2016, Star Line Mackinac Island Ferry purchased Arnold Transit Company, reducing the number of independently owned ferry operators serving the island from three to two. Star Line subsequently operated under the Mackinac Island Ferry Company name before Hoffmann acquired it in 2024. The operation is now known as Arnold Transit Company.
Hoffmann's acquisitions brought both remaining ferry operations under common ownership though they do operate under separate management teams.
The state alleges that Hoffmann now controls every passenger ferry line and commercial dock serving Mackinac Island, along with nearly all long-term parking near the mainland ferry terminals in Mackinaw City and St. Ignace.
The Attorney General alleges that consolidation eliminated meaningful competition and allowed Hoffmann to increase ferry fares, introduce additional fees, discontinue discounts and passes used by island residents and workers, and begin charging for parking that had previously been offered at no cost.
The lawsuit also alleges the company suspended certain ferry services and eliminated customer benefits.
Nessel Says Monopoly Has Harmed Consumers and Island Businesses.
Nessel said the company gained its market position through acquisitions rather than competing through better service or lower prices.
"Hoffmann did not earn its ferry monopoly by offering better service or lower prices. Instead, it purchased its monopoly by illegally acquiring all of its potential rivals," Nessel said in the Attorney General's announcement.
She also raised concerns about the company's response when the Mackinac Island City Council attempted to address ferry pricing.
Nessel alleged that Hoffmann threatened to cease all ferry service when local officials challenged its pricing and contract demands, effectively placing the island's economy at risk.
The Attorney General said the state intends to enforce Michigan's antitrust laws to prevent a single corporation from exercising excessive control over markets that affect communities and consumers.
The lawsuit seeks several remedies, including:
- Divestiture: Requiring Hoffmann to sell certain ferry and parking assets to restore independent competition.
- Injunctions: Restricting conduct the state alleges continues to maintain the monopoly.
- Financial recovery: Requiring the company to return profits the state alleges were unlawfully obtained.
- Consumer damages: Seeking compensation for alleged overcharges paid by ferry passengers and parking customers.
- Civil penalties: Seeking financial penalties under Michigan antitrust law.
Nessel's office argues that residents, workers, businesses and visitors have faced higher costs and fewer choices as a result of the consolidation.
The lawsuit's allegations have not been proven in court.
Mackinac Island Voters Approve Expanded City Authority Over Ferry Rates.
The Attorney General's lawsuit follows a separate but closely related development: Mackinac Island voters' approval of a city charter amendment giving local officials expanded authority over ferry pricing and related fees.
On November 3, island voters approved the measure authorized by Michigan Senate Bill 304, also designated Local Act 1 of 2026.
The legislation was sponsored by Republican state Sen. John Damoose of Harbor Springs and received bipartisan support. Gov. Gretchen Whitmer signed the legislation on June 3, 2026.
Because Mackinac Island operates under a special city charter dating to 1899, changes to its charter require action by the Michigan Legislature and approval by the island's voters.
The city's existing charter already provided authority to regulate ferry transportation rates. However, questions had arisen over whether that authority extended to additional charges imposed on passengers, including baggage, parking and priority boarding fees.
The new legislation and subsequent voter approval expand the city's authority to regulate all aspects of ferry service and establish charges associated with transporting people and property.
Specifically, the expanded authority includes:
- Ferry ticket prices and transportation rates.
- Baggage fees.
- Early and priority boarding charges.
- Parking fees for vehicles used by people accessing ferry services, including parking on the mainland.
- Other fees and charges connected to ferry transportation.
The ballot measure was approved by more than 90% of voters, according to John Sellek, spokesperson for the Fair Access to Mackinac Island Coalition.
The outcome gives Mackinac Island officials a stronger legal basis to oversee the total cost of ferry transportation rather than limiting their authority to the basic passenger fare.
How the Election Result Affects the Hoffmann Dispute.
The election result is significant because the disagreement between the city and Hoffmann has involved more than the price of a ferry ticket.
The city previously challenged increases in passenger fares and additional charges, arguing that its historic charter authority allowed it to regulate ferry transportation costs.
In response to disputes over pricing, the city adopted Ordinance 629 to establish regulatory requirements for ferry operators.
The ferry companies challenged the city's authority in federal court. In March 2026, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals vacated a preliminary injunction that had restricted the city's enforcement of its ferry-rate regulations. The appellate court said the city could implement its ordinance consistent with the court's opinion and existing law.
The city subsequently rejected the ferry companies' proposed 2026 season rates and demanded compliance with its regulatory requirements.
Senate Bill 304 and the November 3 voter approval address the remaining uncertainty surrounding the city's authority over additional fees and charges.
The expanded authority is particularly important because charges for parking, baggage and other services can substantially increase the actual cost of reaching the island.
However, the new authority does not automatically resolve the existing contractual dispute.
Hoffmann has maintained that its existing franchise agreements with the city remain in effect through June 30, 2027. The company has said the new legislation cannot modify those agreements and will not affect the 2027 season.
That position is part of the continuing dispute and could become an issue in further legal proceedings.
The Attorney General's lawsuit also raises a separate question: whether the company's ownership of both ferry operations and much of the related parking market violates Michigan antitrust law.
The voter-approved charter amendment strengthens the city's regulatory authority, while the state's lawsuit seeks to address the underlying ownership structure and restore competition.
Together, the two developments increase legal and regulatory pressure on Hoffmann.
Hoffmann Responds: Lawsuit Threatens Ongoing Mediation.
The Hoffmann Family of Companies disputes the Attorney General's allegations and says it intends to defend its business practices in court.
In a statement provided following the lawsuit's announcement, the company said it believes its operations comply with state and federal antitrust laws. It also referenced two previous federal court decisions involving the City of Mackinac Island, saying those courts had rejected the city's antitrust claims.
Hoffmann further said that Attorney General Nessel had encouraged the parties in April to resolve their ongoing disagreements and that the company had agreed to participate in mediation.
The company expressed concern that the new lawsuit could interfere with those efforts.
Hoffmann's stated objective remains negotiating a contract extension with the city that it says would serve the public interest and ensure sustainable ferry service.
The company's complete position, as reported by Michigan Advance, includes four principal points:
- Hoffmann says it will respond to the lawsuit in court and is confident it will prevail because it believes it has not violated state or federal antitrust laws.
- The company points to two federal court decisions rejecting the city's previous antitrust claims.
- Hoffmann says it is actively participating in mediation following Nessel's April request that the parties work toward resolving their disagreements.
- The company says the lawsuit threatens those mediation efforts but maintains that it wants to reach an agreement on a viable contract extension to ensure continued ferry service.
The distinction between the previous federal cases and the new state lawsuit is important. The earlier cases were brought by the city and were dismissed for lack of standing, rather than decided on the merits of the Attorney General's separate antitrust claims.
Assistant Attorney General Jonathan Comish explained that the state has a different legal basis for bringing an antitrust enforcement action. Unlike a private plaintiff seeking damages, the state can pursue enforcement based on alleged violations of Michigan antitrust law.
City of Mackinac Island Welcomes State Intervention.
Mackinac Island Mayor Margaret Doud welcomed the Attorney General's lawsuit in a statement issued on behalf of the city.
Doud emphasized that the dispute extends beyond the island's year-round community, affecting more than 1.5 million people who visit annually.
"This was never only an Island issue. More than 1.5 million people travel to Mackinac Island each year, and many of them are Michigan families," Doud said.
She also noted that more than 80% of the island is designated as Mackinac Island State Historic Parks, public property belonging to the people of Michigan.
Doud said the city's objective has always been to maintain a ferry system that serves the public while preserving the Mackinac Island experience for future generations.
She expressed gratitude that the state had joined the city's efforts to address the dispute.
Hoffmann's Broader Holdings in the Straits Region.
The Attorney General's announcement also highlighted the company's extensive business and property holdings in the region.
According to the state, Hoffmann owns more than 116 parcels of land and 51 buildings in the Straits of Mackinac area, making it the region's largest landholder.
Its holdings include:
- The St. Ignace News and the Mackinac Island Town Crier.
- Sip n' Sail Cruises, a sightseeing and dinner-cruise company.
- Mackinac Marine Services shipyard.
- East Dock, a major private yacht dock on Mackinac Island.
- Passenger ferry operations and related docking and parking facilities.
The concentration of transportation, property and media holdings has added to concerns about the company's influence over the regional economy.
What Happens Next?
The lawsuit places the future structure of Mackinac Island's ferry transportation system before the courts.
Nessel is seeking remedies that could require Hoffmann to sell portions of its ferry and parking operations to restore independent competition.
During her announcement, Nessel said the court would ultimately determine the appropriate remedies. Assistant Attorney General Jonathan Comish indicated that divestiture could involve separating ferry operations that were previously independently owned.
The state is also seeking financial recovery for alleged monopoly profits and consumer overcharges.
Meanwhile, Mackinac Island's expanded regulatory authority creates a new framework for local oversight of ferry fares and related charges. However, the effect of that authority on existing franchise agreements remains disputed.
The outcome could have significant implications for Mackinac Island residents, seasonal workers, businesses, tourists and the broader Straits of Mackinac region.
For now, two separate legal questions remain central: whether Hoffmann's acquisitions and market control violated Michigan antitrust law, and how far the city can exercise its newly expanded authority over ferry pricing and operations.
Both disputes will help determine whether Mackinac Island's ferry system continues under common ownership or returns to a structure with independently competing operators.
