Part 1
Following the Money: New Compensation Rules for 2027
The revised WB forms change how compensation is addressed in residential transactions. For licensees, understanding the changes requires looking at more than one form. Beginning January 1, 2027, a firm may no longer accept compensation from another firm for brokerage services in a transaction involving residential property containing one to four dwelling units. A seller may, however, agree to pay compensation to a firm working with a buyer when that agreement is included in an executed offer to purchase or option to purchase.
The revised WB-1 Residential Listing Contract — Exclusive Right to Sell addresses the seller’s agreement to compensate the listing firm. The revised WB-36 Buyer Agency Agreement addresses the buyer’s agreement to compensate the buyer’s firm. And when a seller agrees to pay compensation to a firm working with a buyer, the revised WB-11 Residential Offer to Purchase provides the place for the buyer and seller to make that agreement.
Together, the three forms implement the compensation changes made by 2025 Wisconsin Act 69.
The revised forms are available for optional use beginning October 1, 2026, and become mandatory January 1, 2027. To see the new forms and an overview of the changes, visit the WRA forms update resource webpage at www.wra.org/FormsUpdate.
Start with the firm and its client
The revised forms begin with a familiar concept: a firm’s compensation is established in its agency agreement with its client.
For a listing firm, that agreement is the WB-1 Residential Listing Contract. The seller agrees to compensate the listing firm according to the terms of the listing contract.
For a buyer’s firm, the WB-36 Buyer Agency Agreement establishes the buyer’s obligation to compensate the buyer’s firm. The buyer and buyer’s firm negotiate the firm’s compensation and document their agreement in the WB-36. Those agreements establish what each firm’s client has agreed to pay.
No more compensation from one firm to another
Beginning January 1, 2027, Wis. Stat. § 452.19 prohibits a firm from accepting compensation from another firm for brokerage services performed in a transaction involving residential property containing one to four dwelling units.
That means the listing firm cannot compensate the buyer’s firm for brokerage services as part of the transaction. Referral fees are not prohibited by this restriction.
Can the seller pay a firm working with a buyer?
Yes. Although the listing firm cannot compensate the firm working with a buyer for brokerage services, Act 69 permits the seller to agree to pay compensation directly to the firm working with the buyer. But that agreement cannot be made in the WB-1 Residential Listing Contract.
For residential property containing one to four dwelling units, Wis. Stat. § 452.19(4) requires an agreement for a seller to pay compensation to a firm providing brokerage services to a buyer to be expressly stated in the fully executed offer to purchase or option to purchase and signed by the buyer and seller.
That is where the revised WB-11 Residential Offer to Purchase comes in.
The WB-11 connects the seller and the firm working with the buyer
The revised WB-11 includes provisions that allow the buyer to request that the seller pay compensation to the firm working with the buyer.
If the seller agrees, the executed offer documents the seller’s agreement to make that payment. How that payment operates depends on whether the firm is working with the buyer as a client or as a customer.
When the buyer is a client, the WB-36 Buyer Agency Agreement establishes the buyer’s compensation obligation to the buyer’s firm. A seller’s payment under the WB-11 can be applied toward the compensation the buyer owes the buyer’s firm under the WB-36.
When the buyer is a customer, there is no WB-36 Buyer Agency Agreement establishing a compensation obligation between
the buyer and the firm. The WB-11 instead allows the seller to agree to pay compensation to the firm working with the buyer as a customer.
In either situation, the seller’s payment is documented in the executed offer. The payment does not originate with the listing firm, and the listing firm does not agree in the WB-1 to compensate the firm working with the buyer.
How does the WB-1 fit into this?
The revised WB-1 recognizes that a seller may be willing to pay compensation to a buyer’s firm. The WB-1 also addresses whether the seller authorizes the listing firm to disclose that the seller is offering compensation to a firm other than the listing firm.
Disclosure of an offer of compensation is not the same as an agreement to pay it.
Even if the seller authorizes the listing firm to disclose an offer of compensation, the seller’s obligation to pay the buyer’s firm must ultimately be documented in the executed offer to purchase or option to purchase as required by Wis. Stat. § 452.19(4).
How do the three forms work together?
Think of each form as answering a different compensation question:
WB-1 Residential Listing Contract: What has the seller agreed to pay the listing firm, and may the listing firm disclose that the seller is offering compensation to another firm?
WB-36 Buyer Agency Agreement: What has the buyer agreed to pay the buyer’s firm?
WB-11 Residential Offer to Purchase: Will the seller agree to pay some or all of the compensation owed to the buyer’s firm or pay compensation to a firm working with a buyer as a customer?
The forms work together, but each agreement serves a different purpose.
What does this look like in practice?
Suppose a buyer has entered into a WB-36 Buyer Agency Agreement and agreed to compensate the buyer’s firm according to the terms of that agreement.
The buyer then decides to ask the seller to pay some or all of the buyer’s firm’s compensation. The buyer includes that request in the WB-11 Residential Offer to Purchase.
If the seller accepts the offer with that provision, the executed WB-11 creates the seller’s obligation to pay the amount stated in the offer to the buyer’s firm.
If the seller does not agree to pay all the compensation the buyer owes under the WB-36, the buyer remains responsible for any amount owed under the terms of the buyer agency agreement.
The important point is that the seller’s payment under the WB-11 and the buyer’s obligation under the WB-36 are related, but they are not the same agreement.
A different compensation conversation
The revised forms do not eliminate compensation negotiations. They change where those agreements are made and how the payments are documented.
Listing agents will need to discuss with sellers their compensation obligation to the listing firm and whether the seller is willing to offer compensation to a firm working with a buyer.
Buyer agents will need to discuss compensation with buyers when entering into the WB-36 and help buyers understand their contractual obligation to the buyer’s firm, including what happens if a seller pays only part — or none — of that amount.
And when a buyer asks a seller to pay the buyer’s firm, that agreement belongs in the offer to purchase.
Part 2
Seeing Isn’t Always Believing: New Advertising Rules for 2027
Technology has made it easier than ever to create attractive real estate advertising. A few clicks can brighten a dark room, remove clutter, replace a brown lawn with green grass, or show buyers what an outdated kitchen might look like after a renovation.
Artificial intelligence (AI) has made those tools even more powerful and much easier to use.
Beginning January 1, 2027, Wisconsin law will specifically address what happens when technology is used to alter real estate advertising in a way that could give consumers a false or misleading impression of a property.
The new requirements are part of 2025 Wisconsin Act 69 and add a new advertising provision to Wis. Stat. § 452.136.
Unlike the Act 69 provisions addressing public marketing and compensation, which focus on residential property containing one to four dwelling units, the new advertising requirements apply to all types of real estate.
For licensees, the important point is that Act 69 does not prohibit the use of AI or other technology in real estate advertising. Instead, it focuses on transparency when technology changes how the property itself is represented.
Technology is not the problem
Real estate professionals have been enhancing photographs and other advertising materials for years.
Photographers adjust lighting and exposure. Images may be cropped or straightened. Virtual staging can help consumers imagine how an empty room could be used. New AI tools can accomplish even more sophisticated changes in seconds.
Act 69 does not make those tools off limits. Instead, the law addresses advertising that has been altered or modified using technology, including AI, when the alteration adds, removes or changes a feature of the property and creates a false or misleading impression regarding the property.
That distinction is important: The new law is not an “AI was used” disclosure requirement, and the mere use of technology does not automatically trigger a disclosure. The focus is on what the technology did to the representation of the property.
Three questions to ask
When evaluating whether the new disclosure requirement applies, a licensee can think about three questions:
Was technology used to alter or modify advertising?
The statute is not limited to a particular program, platform or type of AI. The relevant issue is whether technology was used to alter or modify the advertisement.
Did the alteration add, remove or change a feature of the property?
This is where licensees should look beyond ordinary photographic adjustments and consider whether the advertisement now depicts the property differently from how it actually exists.
Could the alteration create a false or misleading impression regarding the property?
If the answer to all three questions is yes, the disclosure requirement applies. This approach keeps the focus where it belongs: on whether a consumer could be misled about the actual property rather than on which technological tool was used to create the advertisement.
Consider the kitchen — suppose a licensee is marketing a home with an older kitchen. The kitchen has laminate countertops, dated cabinets and older appliances.
An AI program is used to create an advertising image showing the same kitchen with stone countertops, new cabinets and stainless-steel appliances.
The resulting image may be useful for helping consumers visualize the kitchen’s potential, but the image does not depict the kitchen as it currently exists. Technology has changed features of the property, and a consumer viewing the image without
additional information could reasonably believe those features are actually present.
That is the type of advertising Act 69 is designed to address. The use of the altered image is not necessarily prohibited. Instead, the advertisement must include the disclosure required by Wisconsin law so consumers understand that what they are seeing has been technologically altered.
What about ordinary photo editing?
Now consider a different example. A living room photograph is dark because it was taken on a cloudy day. The photographer adjusts the brightness and exposure so consumers can see the room more clearly. No walls, windows, flooring, fixtures or other property features are added, removed or changed.
The fact that technology was used to improve the photograph does not, by itself, mean the new Act 69 disclosure requirement applies. Again, this is not a blanket rule requiring licensees to disclose every use of photo-editing software or AI.
The question is whether the technology changed a feature of the property in a way that creates a false or misleading impression.
That distinction should allow licensees to continue using ordinary tools to produce professional advertising while providing consumers with additional transparency when technological alterations materially change what the property appears to be.
Removing something can matter too
Adding features is only one side of the equation. Technology can also be used to remove features that may matter to a consumer.
Imagine an exterior photograph showing utility lines crossing the backyard. If an AI editing tool removes the utility lines from the photograph, the resulting image may present a materially different impression of the property.
The same concern could arise if technology removes visible damage, a permanent structure or another existing feature.
A licensee should therefore not limit the analysis to whether technology made a property look “better.” The statute addresses the addition, removal or change of property features.
The practical question is whether the advertising still gives consumers an accurate understanding of the property they are being shown.
Virtual staging should be disclosed
Virtual staging is a common example of how technology can change what consumers see in real estate advertising. Technology can add furniture and décor to an empty room, but it can also replace flooring, alter cabinets, change landscaping or even depict a substantially renovated space.
Even seemingly simple virtual staging can affect a consumer’s impression of the property. Digitally added furniture or décor may obscure portions of a room, potentially concealing an existing feature or condition such as stained carpet, damaged trim or part of a window.
For that reason, the best practice is straightforward: if an image has been virtually staged, disclose it. A clear disclosure eliminates uncertainty about whether the alteration falls within the statutory disclosure requirement and lets consumers know that portions of the image do not depict the property exactly as it exists.
Virtual staging can still be a useful marketing tool. Disclosure simply gives consumers the context they need to distinguish the actual property from elements added or altered using technology.
The rule applies beyond photos
Although photographs may be the most obvious example, licensees should not assume the law is limited to still images.
Real estate advertising increasingly includes video, virtual tours and other technology-enhanced media. The statutory focus is on advertising that has been altered or modified using technology, not simply on traditional listing photographs. Firms should therefore think broadly when developing policies for the use of AI and other technological tools.
The same basic principle applies regardless of the format: If technology is being used to change the representation of property features in a way that could create a false or misleading impression, the licensee should consider the disclosure requirement.
Existing advertising principles still matter
Act 69’s new disclosure requirement should also be viewed alongside the principles that already govern real estate advertising. Licensees have long been responsible for avoiding false, deceptive or misleading advertising, and AI does not change that fundamental obligation.
Act 69 provides a more specific rule for an increasingly common situation: technology can now create remarkably realistic depictions of features that do not exist.
A beautifully generated image may look like a photograph even when significant portions of what the consumer sees were created or changed by software. Disclosure gives consumers context for evaluating that image.
Firms should start thinking about policies now
The new law provides an opportunity for firms to review how licensees and vendors are using technology in advertising.
Who is permitted to alter listing photographs? Are licensees using firm-approved programs? Does a photographer or marketing vendor use AI tools as part of the editing process? How will a licensee know when a property feature has been changed? Who is responsible for making sure the required disclosure appears with the advertising?
These are useful questions even for firms that do not currently make extensive use of AI.
AI features are increasingly being incorporated into ordinary software, and a licensee may use an AI-powered tool without necessarily thinking of the task as “using AI.” For that reason, a firm policy based solely on whether AI was used may miss the point. A more useful policy may focus on what was changed and how the resulting advertisement represents the property.
Transparency without giving up the technology
AI and other technology will continue to change how real estate is marketed.
Act 69 does not ask Wisconsin licensees to stop using those tools. It asks licensees to be transparent when technology changes property features in a way that could leave consumers with a false or misleading impression.
For licensees, the practical analysis can remain relatively simple:
Was the advertisement altered using technology?
Did the alteration add, remove or change a property feature?
Could the result create a false or misleading impression of the property?
When those elements are present, disclosure is part of the advertising process.
The technology may be new, but the underlying principle should be familiar: Consumers should be able to trust that real estate advertising gives them an accurate understanding of the property or tells them when what they are seeing has been technologically changed.
Part 3
Seller Choice Takes Center Stage: New Marketing Rules for 2027
Beginning January 1, 2027, Wisconsin law will establish new marketing requirements for firms listing residential property containing one to four dwelling units. The changes are part of 2025 Wisconsin Act 69 and are reflected in the revised WB listing contracts and the new WB-55 Public Marketing Opt-Out Agreement.
The basic concept is straightforward: public marketing is the default, but the seller retains the ability to choose otherwise.
For listing firms, however, putting that concept into practice requires understanding both the firm’s new statutory duties and the seller’s marketing choices.
New duties for listing firms
Wis. Stat. § 452.1355 establishes several requirements for firms listing residential property containing one to four dwelling units.
A listing firm must share property information with licensees working with prospective buyers or tenants, respond to inquiries from those licensees, and make the property available for showings to prospective buyers or tenants.
The listing firm must also publicly market the property within one business day from the start of the agency agreement unless the owner opts out.
For purposes of the statute, public marketing generally means advertising or marketing the property on one or more internet platforms or websites accessible to the general public and real estate licensees representing prospective buyers or tenants.
The one-business-day deadline makes the start date of the listing contract particularly important. The statutory clock runs from the start of the agency agreement — not necessarily the date the property is ready for photographs, the date the seller wants showings to begin or the date the firm intends to launch its marketing campaign.
Before entering into the listing contract, the firm and seller should therefore discuss the seller’s intended marketing timeline and select a start date that works with that plan.
Seller choice remains part of the equation
Although Act 69 creates a public-marketing requirement, it does not require every seller to publicly market a property.
A seller may have any number of reasons for wanting to limit or delay public marketing. A seller may want time to prepare the property before broadly advertising it. Another seller may have privacy concerns. Still another may prefer a more limited marketing strategy. Act 69 preserves that choice.
If the seller does not want the public marketing otherwise required by the statute, the seller may opt out. The seller’s decision must be documented using the WB-55 Public Marketing Opt-Out Agreement.
This balance between public marketing and seller choice is important. The law establishes the firm’s default marketing obligation while creating a uniform process for a seller who knowingly chooses a different approach. Act 69 also requires the Real Estate Examining Board (REEB) to provide consumers with information about the potential effects of limiting marketing.
Changes to the WB listing contracts
The revised WB listing contracts incorporate the new statutory marketing framework.
The forms address the firm’s obligation to publicly market qualifying residential property and provide the seller with the opportunity to choose whether the property will receive public marketing.
If the seller chooses public marketing, the listing firm proceeds with the marketing required by law and according to the terms of the listing contract. If the seller chooses to opt out of public marketing, the WB-55 becomes part of the process.
This is an important distinction for licensees. A seller’s decision to limit marketing should not simply be handled through an informal conversation, an email or a note in additional provisions. Act 69 establishes a prescribed disclosure and opt-out process, and the WB forms have been revised to implement it.
The revised forms therefore work together: the listing contract establishes the agency relationship and addresses the seller’s marketing choice, while the WB-55 documents the seller’s informed decision to opt out of public marketing.
Meet the WB-55
The WB-55 Public Marketing Opt-Out Agreement is more than a form on which the seller says, “Don’t put my property on the internet.” Its purpose is to make sure the seller understands what that decision may mean.
The WB-55 advises the seller that Wisconsin law otherwise requires the listing firm to publicly market the property within one business day from the start of the agency agreement.
It then explains the potential consequences of opting out.
Among those consequences, real estate licensees and prospective buyers or tenants may not know the property is available. The property may not appear on internet platforms commonly used to search for listings. Consumers may not know the terms and conditions under which the property is being offered. Reduced exposure may also reduce the number
of offers, affect the sale or lease price, or affect the owner’s ability to obtain favorable terms.
The WB-55 also allows the seller to identify the reason for opting out and addresses whether that reason will remain confidential.
The important takeaway is not that limited marketing is necessarily a bad choice. The appropriate marketing strategy depends on the seller and the seller’s objectives. The purpose of the WB-55 is to make the choice an informed one.
What if the seller changes their mind?
A seller’s marketing decision does not have to remain unchanged for the entire listing.
A seller may initially choose limited marketing and later decide that broader exposure better serves the seller’s goals. The listing contract can be amended to reflect the seller’s new instructions and remove the public-marketing opt-out.
Similarly, marketing strategy should be part of the conversation before the listing begins. If a seller wants to delay public marketing for a particular period, the licensee should make sure the listing contract and WB-55 accurately document the seller’s instructions rather than simply assuming the property can remain off the market until the seller says otherwise.
Don’t forget the cooperation requirements
Opting out of public marketing does not eliminate the listing firm’s other statutory duties.
The firm must still share property information with licensees working with prospective buyers or tenants, respond to their inquiries, and make the property available for showings.
That distinction matters. Act 69 permits the seller to limit public marketing, but it does not create a mechanism for a listing firm to use the opt-out to avoid cooperation with licensees working with prospective buyers or tenants.
Act 69 also does not prohibit or discourage private listing networks. The new requirements instead establish minimum obligations for listing firms while preserving the seller’s ability to make an informed choice about public marketing.
What about MLS rules?
Real estate firms and licensees must comply with Wisconsin law, regardless of the rules or policies of an MLS or other organization. An MLS rule cannot require conduct that conflicts with Wisconsin law or prohibit a seller from exercising a right granted by state law.
Under Act 69, a seller of residential property containing one to four dwelling units has the right to opt out of public marketing. An MLS therefore cannot prohibit a seller from exercising that statutory right or impose a requirement that is inconsistent with Wisconsin law.
Firms that participate in an MLS should, of course, continue to understand and comply with applicable MLS rules. But those rules must operate within the framework established by Wisconsin law. When discussing marketing options with sellers, licensees should distinguish between the seller’s rights under Wisconsin law and any additional requirements that may apply through the firm’s participation in an MLS.
A new consumer resource
Act 69 also directs the REEB to make a consumer marketing brochure publicly available. The brochure explains the benefits of public marketing, the potential effects of limiting marketing, and the purpose and implications of the opt-out process. It also addresses how marketing restrictions may affect exposure, competition and final sale price and provides sample questions consumers can ask listing firms about marketing strategies.
Licensees are not responsible for delivering the brochure to every seller. Nevertheless, it can be a useful resource when discussing marketing choices with consumers.
Protection for licensees acting in good faith
Act 69 also provides liability protection for licensees fulfilling the new marketing and disclosure duties.
A licensee who acts in good faith to fulfill the statutory duties may not be held civilly liable for disclosures or representations made while doing so. The protection does not apply when the licensee knowingly makes a false, deceptive or misleading representation.
That protection reinforces one of the central themes of the new law: informed consumer choice supported by consistent disclosure and documentation.
Get ready for January 1
The revised WB forms have an optional use date of October 1, 2026, and become mandatory January 1, 2027.
Before the new year, listing firms should review their listing procedures, marketing timelines and MLS requirements. Licensees should become familiar with the marketing provisions in the revised WB listing contracts and understand when and how to use the WB-55.
Licensees should also be prepared to explain what Wisconsin law requires, what marketing choices the seller has, what the potential consequences of limiting marketing may be, and how the seller’s decision will be documented.
Public marketing may be the statutory default, but under Act 69, an informed seller remains at the center of the marketing decision.
