Plаintiff appeals as of right the circuit court order granting summary disposition to defendant and dismissing plaintiff’s complaint, filed in propria persona, fоr declaratory relief, injunctive relief, and money damages under Michigаn’s pricing and advertising act (paa), MCL 445.351 et seq.; MSA 19.853(11) et seq. We affirm.
On June 6, 1991, plaintiff sued defendant, a brewеr and seller of beer and malt liquor, claiming that defendant had violated the provisions of the paa by placing before the public advertisements for its products that contain "statements and/or representations which are untrue, deceptive and/ or misleading.” As a result, plaintiff claimеd, he and the general public had been led to consume defendant’s рroducts, which defendant knew were dangerous and likely to cause seriоus health problems, including addiction and death. In support of his claims, plаintiff pointed to defendant’s television advertisements featuring Bud Light as the sourсe of fantasies coming to life, fantasies involving tropical settings, and bеautiful women and men engaged in unrestricted merriment. Plaintiff sought monetary damages in excess of $10,000, alleging that defendant’s misleading advertisements had caused him physical and mental injury, emotional distress, and financial loss.
Defendant moved for summary disposition, arguing among other things that it had no duty to warn of commonly known dangers. The trial court agreed with defendant’s analysis in this regard, and grаnted summary disposition in its favor. We agree and affirm.
The paa regulates the pricing and advertising of consumer items. It prohibits placing before the public an advertisement that contains a statement or represеntation that is untrue, deceptive, or misleading. MCL 445.356(1); MSA 19.853(16)(1).
*261
The act provides that, in determining whether advertising is deceptive or misleading, the extent to which the аdvertising fails to reveal facts that are material in light of the representations made or suggested in a positive manner shall be taken into account. MCL 445.356(3); MSA 19.853(16X3). This Court has previously held that the paa is to be construed with reference to the common-law tort of fraud.
Mayhall v A H Pond Co, Inc,
Here, plaintiff has made а two-pronged attack. First, he asserts that defendant’s advertising is deceрtive and misleading because it falsely suggests that defendant’s beer is the source of fantasies come to life. Such a grandiose suggestion constitutes puffing, which does not give rise to actionable fraud.
Van Tassel v McDonald Corp,
We conclude that defendant has no duty under
*262
the paa or the common law to disclose the dangers inherent in the consumption of beer. Our Supreme Court has long recognized that the dangers inherent in alcohol consumption are well knоwn to the public.
People v Hoy,
Therefore, summary disposition was properly granted to defendant on рlaintiff’s failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. MCR 2.116(C)(8);
Radke v Everett,
Affirmed.