Wisconsin Statutes
Wis. Stat. § 100.22 (2026)
Discrimination in purchase of milk prohibited
✓ laws through the 2025-26 session (checked Sept. 2026)
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
WI-LEGdocs.legis.wisconsin.gov
JustiaChapter on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
100.22(1)(1) Prohibition. Except as provided in sub. (1m), no person engaged in the business of buying milk from producers for the purpose of manufacture, processing or resale may discriminate between producers in the price paid for milk or in services furnished in connection with the purchase of milk if the discrimination injures producers or injures, destroys or prevents competition between competing purchasers of milk.
100.22(1m)(1m) Milk pricing. A person engaged in the business of buying milk from producers for the purpose of manufacture, processing or resale may pay producers different prices for the purchase of milk based on differences in milk quality, if all of the following apply:
100.22(1m)(a)(a) Before making any payments to producers, the person engaged in the business of buying milk from producers establishes a payment method based on differences in milk quality determined by an actual measured difference in bacteria count, somatic cell count, enzyme level or drug residue findings in the milk.
100.22(1m)(b)(b) Before making any payments to producers, the person engaged in the business of buying milk from producers announces, and offers to make payments in accordance with, the payment method established under par. (a) to all producers from whom the person buys milk.
100.22(1m)(c)(c) The person engaged in the business of buying milk from producers makes payments to all milk producers from whom the person purchases milk in accordance with the payment method established under par. (a).
100.22(1m)(d)(d) The payment method established under par. (a) is not part of any other method used to discriminate between producers in the price paid for milk or in services furnished in connection with the purchase of milk.
100.22(2)(2) Contracts void. A contract in violation of this section or a special order issued under this section is void.
100.22(3)(3) Justification defense. It is a defense to a prosecution for violation of this section or a special order issued under this section to prove that the discrimination in price or services was done in good faith to meet competition or was commensurate with an actual difference in the quantity of or transportation charges or marketing expenses for the milk purchased.
100.22(4)(a)(a) The department may, after hearing, issue a special order enjoining violations of this section.
100.22(4)(b)(b) The department may, without alleging or proving that no other adequate remedy at law exists, bring an action to enjoin violations of this section or a special order issued under this section in the circuit court for the county where the alleged violation occurred.
100.22(5)(a)(a) A person who violates this section shall forfeit not less than $100 nor more than $2,500.
100.22(5)(b)(b) A person who violates a special order issued under this section shall forfeit not less than $200 nor more than $5,000.
100.22 AnnotationApplication of volume premium rules to sales and delivery of milk from Wisconsin cows occurring at out-of-state processing plants would violate the commerce clause of the U.S. Constitution. Dean Foods Co. v. Brancel, 187 F.3d 609 (1999).
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 6
cases, 1957–1999 · leading case: Elections Bd. v. Wisconsin Mfrs. & Com., 597 N.W.2d 721 (Wis. 1999).
Elections Bd. v. Wisconsin Mfrs. & Com., 597 N.W.2d 721 (Wis. 1999). “[25] The FEC rule provides: § 100.22 Expressly advocating (2 U.S.C. 431 (17)).”
White House Milk Co. v. Reynolds, 106 N.W.2d 441 (Wis. 1960). “(1) Any person, firm, or corporation, foreign or domestic, engaged in the business of buying milk, cream, or butterfat for the purpose of manufacture, that shall discriminate between different sections, communities, towns, villages, or cities of this state, or between persons,…”
Crave v. Tracy, 955 F. Supp. 1047 (E.D. Wis. 1996). “They also seek preliminary and permanent injunctive relief restraining the defendant and his agents from the use, operation, enforcement, execution, and application of Wis.Stat. § 100.22 1 and Wis.Stat. § 100.”
Dean Foods Co. v. Ben Brancel, 187 F.3d 609 (7th Cir. 1999). “if the discrimination injures producers,” Wis. Stat. § 100.22 (1), but which was apparently not enforced against volume premiums prior to the enactment of the 1996 regulations.”
White House Milk Co. v. Thomson, 81 N.W.2d 725 (Wis. 1957). “Sec. 100.22, Stats., which the plaintiff seeks to have declared unconstitutional, is a criminal statute which prohibits a purchaser of milk, cream, or butterfat from paying different prices for such products in different communities of the state, unless justified by a…”
Dean Foods Co. v. Brancel, 22 F. Supp. 2d 931 (W.D. Wis. 1998). “Wisconsin’s volume premium rules Wis.Stat. § 100.22 prohibits discrimination in the “purchase” of milk.”
Wis. Stat. § 100.22(3): 1 case
Crave v. Tracy, 955 F. Supp. 1047 (E.D. Wis. 1996). “They also seek preliminary and permanent injunctive relief restraining the defendant and his agents from the use, operation, enforcement, execution, and application of Wis.Stat. § 100.22 1 and Wis.Stat. § 100.”
Wis. Stat. § 100.22(4): 1 case
Dean Foods Co. v. Brancel, 22 F. Supp. 2d 931 (W.D. Wis. 1998). “Wisconsin’s volume premium rules Wis.Stat. § 100.22 prohibits discrimination in the “purchase” of milk.”
Wis. Stat. § 100.22(b): 1 case
Elections Bd. v. Wisconsin Mfrs. & Com., 597 N.W.2d 721 (Wis. 1999). “[25] The FEC rule provides: § 100.22 Expressly advocating (2 U.S.C. 431 (17)).”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.