The movement gained traction last month when Gov. Rick Snyder called for the item-pricing law to be repealed, saying it cost consumers and retailers billions of dollars. But detractors have suggested the decades-old law provides consumer protection against price gouging.

The bill passed Wednesday would not repeal the old law, but instead would make changes that would not require every item be labeled with a price. Rather, retailers would be required, among other things, to display an item’s price nearby.

The Senate will be sent the legislation, where it’s likely to gain support among the Republican supermajority. State Sen. Rick Jones, R-Grand Ledge, said striking down the “archaic” law will promote a better business climate in the state.

“Has anybody ever noticed any big problems when they went to another state?” Jones said. “There isn’t any problem. It’s time to stop this archaic practice and modernize Michigan.”

But state Rep. Jon Switalski, D-Warren, argued the bill passed Wednesday strips consumer protections against unfair pricing practices. The lawmaker voted against the measure when it passed through the House Commerce Committee, of which he is the minority vice chairman, and the full House.

Switalski also took issue with a $100,000 appropriation to the Michigan attorney general’s office contained within the bill, meant as a way for the office to promote the law if it changes.

That appropriation, though, makes the legislation immune to a voter referendum should citizens try to stop such a measure from being implemented, Switalski said.

Mostly, the lawmaker said food items and over-the-counter drugs still should be priced individually because they are essentials.

“People don’t have a choice; they have to go grocery shopping,” Switalski said. “When people are struggling, people need to get the most food for their budget, and this makes that even more difficult.”

Analysts at East Lansing-based consulting firm Anderson Economic Group have pegged the cost of the old law at $2.2 billion. The group released a study in December that called for reforms, saying it is one of the only statutes like it in the country.

The study found the law to be unnecessary, given the costs associated with hiring workers to price items, enforcing the law and paying for the materials to price every item.

“The current law, which requires putting a price tag on every single item, is extremely burdensome,” said Scott Watkins, a senior consultant at Anderson Economic Group, who noted other states have consumer protection laws without requiring every item be priced. “It’s simply not necessary for today’s technology.”