Practice Changes

Beginning January 1, 2027, Wis. Stat. § 452.136 requires a licensee to disclose when advertising has been altered or modified using technology, including artificial intelligence (AI), in a manner that adds, removes or changes an element of the property and creates a false or misleading impression of the property.

The new law does not prohibit the use of technology in real estate advertising. Rather, it requires transparency when technological alterations create a false or misleading impression of the property.

No. The disclosure requirement is not triggered simply because AI or another technology was used.

The important questions are whether technology was used to add, remove or change an element of the property and whether the alteration creates a false or misleading impression of the property.

The requirement applies to technology generally, not just AI. The focus is on what was changed and the impression the resulting advertisement creates, rather than the particular software or technology used.

Yes. The new requirements apply to all property types and are not limited to a particular advertising medium.

If a licensee advertises a property on social media, a website, an MLS, in an email, in printed materials or through another advertising platform, any required disclosure should be included in the advertising.

The requirements also are not limited to photographs. They may apply to videos, virtual tours and other advertising materials altered using technology.

As a best practice, licensees should disclose whenever an image has been virtually staged.

Virtual staging can add furniture and décor to an empty room, but it can also replace flooring, alter cabinets, change landscaping or depict renovations that have not occurred.

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.

Although not every instance of virtual staging will necessarily satisfy the statutory disclosure requirements, the recommended practice is straightforward: If an image has been virtually staged, disclose it.

A disclosure such as "Virtually Staged" lets consumers know that portions of the image do not depict the property exactly as it exists.

It depends on whether the alteration creates a false or misleading impression of the property.

For example, digitally removing a few personal items from a countertop may not necessarily misrepresent the property. However, removing furniture or other items that conceal damage or changing the image in a way that misrepresents the property's condition may trigger the disclosure requirement.

Licensees should consider not only what was removed but also whether the resulting image accurately represents the property.

When in doubt, disclosure is a prudent practice.

Potentially. The answer depends on what was changed and whether the alteration creates a false or misleading impression.

For example, digitally replacing a patchy lawn with lush green grass or adding landscaping that does not exist could give consumers an inaccurate impression of the property.

Replacing a cloudy sky with a sunny sky may not necessarily trigger the statutory requirement if the alteration does not change a property element or create a false or misleading impression. However, licensees should consider whether the overall alteration misrepresents the property's appearance or surroundings.

Yes, when the technological alteration depicts property features or improvements that do not exist and creates a false or misleading impression.

For example, using AI to show hardwood floors where the property actually has carpeting, or depicting a kitchen with new cabinets and countertops when those improvements have not been made, can mislead consumers about the property's actual features.

The advertisement should clearly disclose that the image has been digitally altered.

Yes, when removing those features creates a false or misleading impression of the property.

For example, digitally removing power lines crossing a backyard or a neighboring structure visible from the property could give consumers an inaccurate understanding of the property's surroundings.

Licensees should not assume that a feature is unimportant simply because it is located outside the property boundaries. Removing surrounding features may still create a misleading impression of the property being advertised.

Generally, no. Routine photographic adjustments that improve image quality without changing property elements or creating a false or misleading impression would not ordinarily trigger the disclosure requirement.

For example, increasing the brightness of a dark photograph so consumers can see the room more clearly generally would not require disclosure.

Similarly, cropping or correcting lens distortion to improve the composition of a photograph would not ordinarily require disclosure. However, editing that conceals significant property features or conditions or otherwise creates a misleading impression may trigger the requirement.

The law does not prescribe specific disclosure language.

The disclosure should clearly communicate that the advertising has been altered or modified using technology.

Depending on the circumstances, examples might include:

• "Image Has Been Digitally Altered."

• "Virtually Staged."

• "Digitally Altered to Show Potential Renovations."

• "Rendering Depicts Possible Improvements."

Firms may develop standardized disclosure language for use in their advertising. The language should accurately describe the alteration and provide consumers with sufficient information to understand that the image does not necessarily depict the property as it currently exists.

The statute requires disclosure in the advertising but does not prescribe a specific location or format for the disclosure.

As a best practice, licensees should make disclosures clear and conspicuous so consumers can readily identify which images have been altered.

When multiple images are included in an advertisement, placing a disclosure directly on or adjacent to each altered image may help avoid confusion, particularly when images can be viewed or shared individually.

Licensees are responsible for ensuring that their advertising complies with Wisconsin law.

This responsibility remains important when photographs, videos or other advertising materials are prepared by photographers, marketing companies or other third-party vendors.

Licensees should understand whether technology has been used to alter advertising and verify that any required disclosures are included before the advertising is published.

Firms should also consider establishing procedures for reviewing technology-enhanced advertising and communicating disclosure expectations to vendors.

Yes. The 2027 Practice Changes establish minimum legal disclosure requirements. A firm may adopt policies requiring additional disclosures.

For example, a firm may require disclosure whenever an image has been virtually staged, even if the particular alteration does not independently trigger the statutory requirement.

A firm may also establish policies addressing the use of AI, image editing, virtual staging or third-party advertising vendors.

Licensees should comply with both Wisconsin law and their firm's advertising policies.

The new requirement is intended to promote transparency and help consumers understand when technology has changed how a property is represented in advertising.

Artificial intelligence and other technology can create realistic images depicting features or improvements that do not actually exist. Consumers may have difficulty distinguishing those images from photographs of the property as it currently exists.

The goal is not to prohibit the use of technology but to ensure consumers receive accurate information and are not misled by technologically altered advertising.

Beginning January 1, 2027, a real estate firm may not accept compensation from another firm for brokerage services performed in connection with a transaction involving residential property containing one to four dwelling units.

This means a listing firm can no longer pay a cooperating firm a portion of its commission for brokerage services provided in the transaction.

However, the law does not prohibit a seller from paying compensation directly to a firm working with the buyer. That payment must be expressly provided for in the fully executed offer to purchase or option to purchase signed by the buyer and seller.

Referral fees are permitted under Wisconsin law remain permissible.

No. The new restrictions on firm-to-firm compensation apply to transactions involving residential property containing one to four dwelling units.

Yes. The new law does not prohibit seller-paid compensation.

A seller may agree to pay compensation directly to a firm working with the buyer if the payment is expressly provided for in the fully executed offer to purchase or option to purchase signed by the buyer and seller.

The payment is made by the seller to the firm working with the buyer, rather than through the listing firm.

Yes. A buyer who has entered into a buyer agency agreement may include a provision in the offer to purchase requesting that the seller pay some or all of the compensation owed to the buyer's firm.

The Buyer Agent Compensation (Buyer Client) provision in the revised WB offers allows the buyer to make this request regardless of whether the seller previously indicated a willingness to pay compensation.

The seller may accept, reject or counter the request as part of the overall negotiation of the offer.

The amount of compensation is negotiable, and a seller may agree to different compensation amounts when considering different offers.

If the seller agrees to pay the buyer's firm, the agreement must be expressly included in the fully executed offer to purchase or option to purchase.

The seller pays the firm working with the buyer as provided in the executed offer to purchase or option to purchase.

The payment is not made by the listing firm because the new law prohibits compensation between firms for brokerage services performed in connection with transactions involving residential property containing one to four dwelling units.

No. For residential property containing one to four dwelling units, the seller's agreement to pay compensation to the firm working with the buyer must be expressly stated in the fully executed offer to purchase or option to purchase signed by the buyer and seller.

A verbal agreement or separate compensation agreement that is not incorporated into the executed offer or option does not satisfy this requirement.

Yes. If the buyer and seller mutually agree, they may amend the accepted offer to include a provision requiring the seller to pay compensation to the buyer's firm.

The agreement should be documented in a written amendment signed by both parties so that the compensation provision becomes part of the executed offer to purchase.

The revised WB listing contracts include an Offer of Compensation section in which the seller may indicate whether the seller “does” or “does not” offer compensation to another firm working with a buyer.

The default selection is “does not.”

The provision addresses compensation the seller may offer to another firm working with a buyer. It does not establish the compensation the seller agrees to pay the listing firm, which is addressed separately in the listing contract.

The listing contract also allows the seller to indicate whether the listing firm may disclose the seller's Offer of Compensation.

For residential property containing one to four dwelling units, any agreement requiring the seller to pay compensation to a firm working with the buyer must be expressly included in the fully executed offer to purchase or option to purchase.

Yes. A seller who selects “does not” in the Offer of Compensation section of the WB-1 may later accept an offer to purchase in which the seller agrees to pay compensation to the firm working with the buyer.

The seller's selection in the WB-1 does not prevent a buyer from requesting that the seller pay the buyer's firm's compensation in an offer to purchase. The seller may accept, reject or negotiate that request.

If the seller agrees, the executed offer establishes the seller's obligation to make the payment.

Each agreement serves a different purpose.

The listing contract establishes the seller's compensation obligation to the listing firm and addresses whether the seller offers compensation to another firm working with a buyer.

The WB-36 Buyer Agency Agreement establishes the buyer's compensation obligation to the buyer's firm.

The offer to purchase is where the buyer and seller negotiate whether the seller will pay compensation to the firm working with the buyer. If the seller agrees to make that payment, the obligation must be expressly included in the fully executed offer to purchase or option to purchase.

If the seller pays compensation to the buyer's firm, that payment reduces the amount the buyer owes under the WB-36. The buyer remains responsible for any remaining compensation owed under the buyer agency agreement.

The buyer's compensation obligation under the WB-36 and the seller's agreement to pay compensation in the offer are separate contractual arrangements.

Yes. If the seller authorizes disclosure of an Offer of Compensation in the listing contract, the listing firm may communicate that information consistent with the seller's instructions.

However, communicating the seller's willingness to pay compensation does not itself establish the seller's obligation to make the payment.

For residential property containing one to four dwelling units, the seller's agreement to pay compensation to the firm working with the buyer must be expressly included in the fully executed offer to purchase or option to purchase.

Yes. When a firm has a multiple representation relationship with the buyer and seller, the buyer may use the Buyer Agent Compensation (Buyer Client) provision in the revised offer to purchase to request that the seller pay some or all of the compensation owed under the buyer agency agreement.

In a multiple representation relationship, the same firm represents both parties. The firm has a listing contract with the seller and a buyer agency agreement with the buyer, and each agreement establishes separate compensation obligations.

The buyer's request does not depend on whether the seller previously made an Offer of Compensation. The seller may accept, reject or negotiate the request.

If the seller agrees, the payment reduces the buyer's compensation obligation under the buyer agency agreement. It does not automatically change the compensation the seller owes under the listing contract.

The firm must continue to fulfill its agency duties to both clients when addressing compensation.

The revised WB offers to purchase include a Seller Offer of Compensation (Buyer Customer) provision that may be used by a subagent working with a buyer-customer only in response to an Offer of Compensation made by the seller.

A subagent continues to owe duties to the seller and may not place the subagent's interests ahead of the seller's interests. The provision expressly requires its use to be consistent with those duties.

If the seller has already offered compensation to the firm working with the buyer-customer, the subagent may use the provision to document the seller's agreement to pay that compensation in the executed offer to purchase.

However, the provision is not intended to allow a subagent to independently request compensation when the seller has not made an Offer of Compensation.

Licensees practicing subagency should carefully consider their duties to the seller when addressing compensation.

No. The prohibition on firm-to-firm compensation does not apply to referral fees between licensees.

A referral fee is different from compensation paid to another firm for brokerage services performed in connection with the transaction.

For example, one firm may refer a buyer to another firm and receive an otherwise lawful referral fee when the receiving firm represents the buyer in purchasing a property.

Under Wis. Stat. § 452.19, an agreement or arrangement that violates the prohibition on firm-to-firm compensation is void and unenforceable.

This means firms should not assume that an agreement to pay prohibited compensation can be enforced merely because the firms agreed to its terms.

The 2027 Practice Changes establish public marketing as the general rule for listed residential property containing one to four dwelling units while preserving the seller's ability to choose a different marketing approach.

Unless the seller opts out, the listing firm must publicly market the property within one business day from the start date of the listing contract. Sellers may choose to limit or decline public marketing, but they must document that decision using the WB-55 Public Marketing Opt-Out Agreement.

The goal is to promote transparency, competition and consumer choice while ensuring sellers understand the potential consequences of limiting their property's exposure.

Under Wis. Stat. § 452.1355, listing firms must:

• Share property information with licensees working with prospective buyers or tenants.

• Respond to inquiries from those licensees.

• Allow showings of the property to prospective buyers or tenants.

• Publicly market the property within one business day from the start date of the listing contract unless the seller opts out.

These requirements apply regardless of the listing firm's business or marketing model.

Importantly, a seller's decision to opt out of public marketing does not eliminate the listing firm's obligations to share property information, respond to inquiries and allow showings.

For purposes of the 2027 Practice Changes, public marketing means advertising or marketing the property on at least one internet platform or website accessible to the general public and real estate licensees working with prospective buyers or tenants.

Unless the seller opts out, the listing firm must publicly market the property within one business day from the start date of the listing contract.

The requirement does not mean the property must be advertised on every available platform. Rather, the listing firm must satisfy the statutory public marketing requirement.

The WB listing contracts contain a Term of the Contract section that establishes the start and end dates of the listing.

The one-business-day public marketing deadline begins with the start date of the listing contract, which may be different from the date the contract is signed, the date photographs are taken or the date the seller wants showings to begin.

For purposes of the public marketing requirement, a business day is any calendar day other than Saturday, Sunday, a Wisconsin or federal legal public holiday, or certain days designated by the President when regular postal service is unavailable.

For example, if the listing contract starts on a Friday, the listing firm has until Monday to publicly market the property, assuming Monday is a business day and the seller has not opted out.

Firms should consider the seller's intended marketing timeline when establishing the start date of the listing contract. Licensees should also consider any applicable MLS requirements, which may establish separate deadlines for submitting listings or reporting marketing activity.

Real estate firms and licensees must comply with Wisconsin law, regardless of the rules or policies of an MLS or other organization.

Under Act 69, a seller of residential property containing one to four dwelling units may opt out of public marketing. An MLS cannot prohibit the seller from exercising that statutory right or impose requirements that conflict with Wisconsin law.

Firms participating in an MLS should continue to understand and comply with applicable MLS rules. Those rules must operate within the framework established by Wisconsin law.

Yes. The 2027 Practice Changes preserve the seller's ability to choose how the property will be marketed.

A seller may choose to delay public marketing, limit public marketing or avoid public marketing entirely. To opt out of the public marketing otherwise required by Wisconsin law, the seller must complete the WB-55 Public Marketing Opt-Out Agreement.

The seller may choose a limited marketing approach for a particular period or for the duration of the listing contract.

A seller who initially opts out may later decide to publicly market the property. The listing firm and the seller should amend the listing contract as needed.

The WB-55 is the state-approved form used when a seller chooses to opt out of public marketing.

The form documents the seller's decision and explains the potential consequences of limiting marketing, including that:

• Licensees and prospective buyers or tenants may not know the property is available.

• The property may not appear on publicly accessible real estate websites or internet listing platforms.

• Interested consumers may not know the terms and conditions under which the property is being offered.

• Reduced exposure may result in fewer offers or less competition.

• Limited marketing may affect the sale or lease price and other terms available to the seller.

The WB-55 also requires the seller to identify the reason for opting out of public marketing and indicate whether that reason will remain confidential.

The purpose of the form is not to discourage private listings. Instead, it helps ensure the seller understands the potential consequences and documents an informed decision.

Yes. Act 69 expressly recognizes that an owner may identify by name licensees, prospective buyers or prospective tenants with whom the owner does not want to work or whom the owner does not want to view the property.

However, these instructions remain subject to applicable fair housing laws. A seller cannot use this provision to discriminate against individuals based on membership in a protected class.

Licensees should not carry out seller instructions that would violate federal, state or local fair housing laws.

The WB-55 documents the seller's decision to limit public marketing and acknowledgment of the potential consequences.

Act 69 provides civil liability protection for licensees acting in good faith when fulfilling the statutory marketing and disclosure requirements. The protection does not apply when a licensee knowingly makes a false, deceptive or misleading representation.

Licensees should properly complete the WB-55 to document the seller's informed decision and the firm's compliance with the marketing requirements. Licensees should also avoid making representations that guarantee a particular outcome from either public or limited marketing.

The revised WB listing contracts incorporate the new public marketing requirements and address the seller's marketing choices.

The listing contract establishes the agency relationship and the firm's marketing obligations. If the seller chooses to opt out of public marketing, the WB-55 documents that decision and the seller's acknowledgment of the potential consequences.

The WB-55 is incorporated into the listing contract and is used in addition to the listing contract, not as a replacement for it.

The revised WB forms have an optional use date of October 1, 2026, and become mandatory January 1, 2027.

Licensees should become familiar with the revised marketing provisions and understand when the WB-55 is necessary.

Act 69 requires the Real Estate Examining Board (REEB) to make a consumer brochure publicly available to help sellers understand their marketing choices.

The brochure addresses:

• The benefits of publicly marketing property to increase exposure and attract prospective buyers or tenants.

• The potential effects of limiting a property's marketing.

• The purpose and implications of signing a public marketing opt-out agreement.

• How marketing restrictions may affect exposure, competition and final sale price.

• Sample questions sellers may ask listing firms about available marketing strategies.

The WB-55 includes a reference to where the brochure can be found.

Act 69 requires REEB to make the brochure publicly available. It does not require licensees to provide a copy to every seller.