In Zine v. Chrysler Corp, 236 Mich App 261, 270-271; 600 NW2d 384 (1999), the defendant, Chrysler Corporation, provided its automobile dealerships with "lemon law" booklets to distribute to customers. The plaintiff argued that the booklet was misleading in violation of the MCPA. The court held that automobile manufacturers have no duty to provide lemon law information to their customers and that no such duty is imposed by the MCPA. The MCPA provides instead that, "when such information is provided, it not be done in a misleading or confusing or otherwise deceptive manner." Zine, supra at 276. The trial court in Zine ruled that Chrysler voluntarily assumed the duty to provide lemon law information and that its failure to provide information specific to Michigan could be a violation of the MCPA. The Court saw two problems with the trial court's reasoning: (1) Chrysler did not voluntarily undertake to provide information to Michigan customers, but merely fulfilled its obligation to provide such information in those states requiring notice by including a lemon law booklet with all vehicles sold, and; (2) voluntary assumption is a concept applicable to negligence law. Zine did not claim that Chrysler was negligent under common law. Zine's claim that Chrysler failed to include information specific to its Michigan customers was predicated on an alleged duty to provide such information. Because Chrysler was under no duty to provide the information and did not purport to do so by providing all customers with a lemon law booklet, the trial court erred in granting Chrysler summary disposition on a breach of duty theory. Specifically, the Zine Court observed that duty is a concept applicable to negligence law, a concept that has little applicability in a case brought under the MCPA. Id. at 277.