Wis. Stat. » CHAPTER 100 — MARKETING; TRADE PRACTICES
Wisconsin Statutes

Wis. Stat. § 100.26 (2026)

Penalties

✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WI-LEGdocs.legis.wisconsin.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
100.26100.26 Penalties.
100.26(1)(1) Any person who violates any provision of this chapter, except s. 100.18, 100.20, 100.206 or 100.51, for which no specific penalty is prescribed shall be fined not to exceed $200, or imprisoned in the county jail not more than 6 months or both.
100.26(2)(2) Any person violating s. 100.02 is guilty of a Class I felony.
100.26(3)(3) Any person who violates s. 100.15 or 100.19, or who intentionally refuses, neglects or fails to obey any regulation or order made or issued under s. 100.19 or 100.20, shall, for each offense, be fined not less than $25 nor more than $5,000, or imprisoned in the county jail for not more than one year or both.
100.26(4)(4) Any person who violates s. 100.18 (1) to (8) or (10) or 100.182 is subject to a civil forfeiture of not less than $50 nor more than $200 for each violation.
100.26(4m)(4m) Any person who violates s. 100.18 (10r) is subject to a civil forfeiture of not less than $100 nor more than $10,000 for each violation.
100.26(5)(5) Any person violating s. 100.18 (9) may be fined not more than $10,000 or imprisoned for not more than 9 months or both. Each day of violation constitutes a separate offense.
100.26(6)(6) The department, the department of justice, after consulting with the department, or any district attorney may commence an action in the name of the state to recover a civil forfeiture to the state of not less than $100 nor more than $10,000 for each violation of an injunction issued under s. 100.18, 100.182 or 100.20 (6). The department of agriculture, trade and consumer protection or any district attorney may commence an action in the name of the state to recover a civil forfeiture to the state of not less than $100 nor more than $10,000 for each violation of an order issued under s. 100.20.
100.26(7)(7) Any person violating s. 100.182 may be fined not more than $10,000 or imprisoned for not more than 9 months or both for each offense. Each unlawful advertisement published, printed or mailed on separate days or in separate publications, hand bills or direct mailings is a separate violation of this section.
100.26(8)(8) Any person who violates s. 100.46 may be required to forfeit not more than $100.
100.26(9)(9) Any person who violates s. 100.30 (7) (a) is subject to a forfeiture of not less than $50 nor more than $200 for each violation.
100.26 HistoryHistory: 1975 c. 39; 1979 c. 327; 1981 c. 90; 1981 c. 124 s. 9; 1983 a. 500; 1985 a. 288; 1989 a. 31; 1993 a. 414; 1995 a. 27; 1997 a. 55, 111, 201, 253, 283; 1999 a. 32; 2001 a. 16, 109.
100.26 AnnotationIt was constitutionally proper for the legislature to authorize in sub. (3) the imposition of criminal penalties for the violation of Department of Agriculture rules adopted pursuant to s. 100.20. State v. Lambert, 68 Wis. 2d 523, 229 N.W.2d 622 (1975).
100.26 Annotation“Intentionally” in sub. (3) modifies only “refuses,” not “neglects or fails.” Multiplicitous charges must be avoided. State v. Stepniewski, 105 Wis. 2d 261, 314 N.W.2d 98 (1982).
Down
Up
100.26 AnnotationA reasonably prudent landlord would be able to understand, by reviewing the relevant statutes and administrative code provisions, that, upon withholding some or all of a tenant’s security deposit, the landlord may be held criminally liable for failing to provide a tenant with a statement of withholdings. A landlord has sufficient notice that failure to comply with the requirements under s. ATCP 134.06 (4), Wis. Adm. Code, could result in a violation of s. 100.20 as an unfair business or trade practice and, therefore, could be criminally prosecuted under sub. (3). The statutory scheme is not void for vagueness and comports with due process in this regard. State v. Lasecki, 2020 WI App 36, 392 Wis. 2d 807, 946 N.W.2d 137, 18-2340.
100.26 AnnotationA conviction under sub. (3) without proof of criminal intent did not violate the due process clause. Stepniewski v. Gagnon, 732 F.2d 567 (1984).
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 22 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1940–2025 · leading case: State v. Stepniewski, 314 N.W.2d 98 (Wis. 1982).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. Stepniewski, 314 N.W.2d 98 (Wis. 1982). · cites it 20× “20, the violation of which are penalized under sec. 100.26(3), Stats., affect potentially all business people in the state.”
Baierl v. McTaggart, 2001 WI 107 (Wis. 2001). · cites it 10× “Wis. Stat. § 100.26 (3). [4] ¶ 14. The sole disputed question before us is whether Baierl may enforce the lease in light of the illegal inclusion of this lease provision.”
Stuart v. Weisflog's Showroom Gallery, Inc., 2008 WI 22 (Wis. 2008). · cites it 8× “ATCP 110 may be prosecuted as crimes, under Wis. Stat. § 100.26 (3). State v. Stepniewski, 105 Wis.”
State v. Clausen, 313 N.W.2d 819 (Wis. 1982). · cites it 6× “" [5] Sec. 100.26(3), Stats. 1977, provides: "100.”
State v. Troy R. Lasecki, 2020 WI App 36 (Wis. Ct. App. 2020). · cites it 9× “§ 100.26 sets forth the penalties for violations of WIS.”
State v. Balestrieri, 274 N.W.2d 269 (Wis. Ct. App. 1978). · cites it 10× “The defendant was charged under sec. 100.26(3), Stats., which provides: Any person who violates s.”
Gallego v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 2005 WI App 244 (Wis. Ct. App. 2005). · cites it 6× “See Wis. Stat. § 100.26 (1) (1977). The criminal penalty for violating § 100.”
State v. Menard, Inc., 358 N.W.2d 813 (Wis. Ct. App. 1984). · cites it 6× “Section 100.26(6), Stats., requires a forfeiture of not less than $100 nor more than $10,000 for each violation of an order issued under sec.”
Emergency One, Inc. v. Waterous Co., Inc., 23 F. Supp. 2d 959 (E.D. Wis. 1998). · cites it 2× “Under this scheme, a private cause of action must be clearly indicated by the legislature.”
State v. Going Places Travel Corp., 2015 WI App 42 (Wis. Ct. App. 2015). · cites it 4× “Although the State could have requested a forfeiture of up to $10,000 per violation, see Wis. Stat. § 100.26 (6), the State requested the minimum $100 forfeiture for each violation, resulting in a total of $353,600.”
State v. Longmire, 2004 WI App 90 (Wis. Ct. App. 2004). “§ 100.26(3) renders it a crime to intentionally refuse, neglect or fail to obey certain trade practice regulations.”
State v. Fonk's Mobile Home Park & Sales, Inc., 395 N.W.2d 786 (Wis. Ct. App. 1986). · cites it 2× “7 Section 100.26(3), Stats., provides that any person who intentionally refuses, neglects or fails to obey any regulation or order made or issued under sec.”
Show all 22 citing cases →
— Wis. Stat. § 100.26(1) — 1 case
Gallego v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 2005 WI App 244 (Wis. Ct. App. 2005). “See Wis. Stat. § 100.26 (1) (1977). The criminal penalty for violating § 100.”
— Wis. Stat. § 100.26(3) — 14 cases
State v. Stepniewski, 314 N.W.2d 98 (Wis. 1982). “20, the violation of which are penalized under sec. 100.26(3), Stats., affect potentially all business people in the state.”
State v. Clausen, 313 N.W.2d 819 (Wis. 1982). “" [5] Sec. 100.26(3), Stats. 1977, provides: "100.”
Stuart v. Weisflog's Showroom Gallery, Inc., 2008 WI 22 (Wis. 2008). “ATCP 110 may be prosecuted as crimes, under Wis. Stat. § 100.26 (3). State v. Stepniewski, 105 Wis.”
State v. Troy R. Lasecki, 2020 WI App 36 (Wis. Ct. App. 2020). “§ 100.26 sets forth the penalties for violations of WIS.”
State v. Balestrieri, 274 N.W.2d 269 (Wis. Ct. App. 1978). “The defendant was charged under sec. 100.26(3), Stats., which provides: Any person who violates s.”
— Wis. Stat. § 100.26(4) — 2 cases
Gallego v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 2005 WI App 244 (Wis. Ct. App. 2005). “See Wis. Stat. § 100.26 (1) (1977). The criminal penalty for violating § 100.”
State v. Am. TV & Appliance of Madison, Inc., 410 N.W.2d 596 (Wis. Ct. App. 1987).
— Wis. Stat. § 100.26(6) — 6 cases
State v. Menard, Inc., 358 N.W.2d 813 (Wis. Ct. App. 1984). “Section 100.26(6), Stats., requires a forfeiture of not less than $100 nor more than $10,000 for each violation of an order issued under sec.”
State v. Stepniewski, 314 N.W.2d 98 (Wis. 1982). “20, the violation of which are penalized under sec. 100.26(3), Stats., affect potentially all business people in the state.”
State v. Going Places Travel Corp., 2015 WI App 42 (Wis. Ct. App. 2015). “Although the State could have requested a forfeiture of up to $10,000 per violation, see Wis. Stat. § 100.26 (6), the State requested the minimum $100 forfeiture for each violation, resulting in a total of $353,600.”
State v. Weller, 327 N.W.2d 172 (Wis. Ct. App. 1982).
Holiday Magic, Inc. v. Warren, 357 F. Supp. 20 (E.D. Wis. 1973).
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.