Wis. Stat. » CHAPTER 133 — TRUSTS AND MONOPOLIES
Wisconsin Statutes

Wis. Stat. § 133.01 (2026)

Legislative intent

✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WI-LEGdocs.legis.wisconsin.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
133.01133.01 Legislative intent. The intent of this chapter is to safeguard the public against the creation or perpetuation of monopolies and to foster and encourage competition by prohibiting unfair and discriminatory business practices which destroy or hamper competition. It is the intent of the legislature that this chapter be interpreted in a manner which gives the most liberal construction to achieve the aim of competition. It is the intent of the legislature to make competition the fundamental economic policy of this state and, to that end, state regulatory agencies shall regard the public interest as requiring the preservation and promotion of the maximum level of competition in any regulated industry consistent with the other public interest goals established by the legislature.
133.01 HistoryHistory: 1979 c. 209.
133.01 AnnotationThis section does not require that any regulation must employ the least anticompetitive means to achieve a legislatively mandated goal. It is nowhere stated that it is the intent of this section that the entire statutes be interpreted in light of this section. This section applies when parties assert violations of antitrust law. County of Milwaukee v. Williams, 2007 WI 69, 301 Wis. 2d 134, 732 N.W.2d 770, 05-2686.
133.01 AnnotationA defendant’s actions that were exempt from federal antitrust laws were also shielded from state antitrust laws. Suburban Beverages v. Pabst Brewing, 462 F. Supp. 1301 (1978).
133.01 AnnotationThe application of ch. 133 to cases involving interstate commerce is discussed. Emergency One, Inc. v. Waterous Co., Inc. 23 F. Supp. 2d 959 (1998).
133.01 AnnotationSpotting unreasonable restraints of trade without difficulty. Hansen, WBB June 1982.
133.01 AnnotationWisconsin’s Antitrust Law: Outsourcing the Legal Standard. Waxman. 94 MLR 1173 (2011).
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 75 cases (4 in the last 5 years), 1930–2025 · leading case: Grams v. Boss, 294 N.W.2d 473 (Wis. 1980).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Grams v. Boss, 294 N.W.2d 473 (Wis. 1980). · cites it 30× “[1973] 4 and not Wisconsin’s mini-Sherman Act [sec. 133.01, Stats.].” The circuit court also stated that even if a claim for “restraint of trade” under sec.”
Heyde Companies v. Dove Healthcare, LLC, 2002 WI 131 (Wis. 2002). · cites it 20× “To the extent that Dove relies on broader arguments under Wis. Stat. § 133.01 , which the majority does not address, its attempt to invalidate the no-hire provision must also fail.”
Cnty. of Milwaukee v. Williams, 2007 WI 69 (Wis. 2007). · cites it 62× “05 conflicts with Wis. Stat. §§ 133.01 , 349.24, and 194.02; and (3) that the restrictions on prearranged taxi service in Ordinance 4.”
Meyers v. Bayer AG, Bayer Corp., 2007 WI 99 (Wis. 2007). · cites it 16× “It is the intent of the legislature to make competition the fundamental economic policy of this state and, to that end, state regulatory agencies shall regard the public interest as requiring the preservation and promotion of the maximum level of competition in any regulated…”
Clean Wisconsin, Inc. v. Pub. Serv. Comm'n, 2005 WI 93 (Wis. 2005). · cites it 8× “It argues that the focus on entry of competitors is supported by the state's policy of fostering competitive marketplaces as stated in Wis. Stat. § 133.01 : 133.01. Legislative intent.”
Thomas F. Benson v. City of Madison, 2017 WI 65 (Wis. 2017). · cites it 8× “at 369 (quoting then- Wis. Stat. §§ 133.01 , 133.04). We noted that we had "repeatedly held that a city is a municipal corporation" and concluded that "cities .”
Olstad v. Microsoft Corp., 2005 WI 121 (Wis. 2005). · cites it 9× “Olstad also directs our attention to the context of the statute, namely, the expression of legislative intent in Wis. Stat. § 133.01 : *236 The intent of this chapter is to safeguard the public against the creation or perpetuation of monopolies and to foster and encourage…”
Emergency One, Inc. v. Waterous Co., Inc., 23 F. Supp. 2d 959 (E.D. Wis. 1998). · cites it 14× “” Wis. Stat. § 133.01 (1998). Defendants have provided the court with copies of a Wisconsin Legislative Council staff memorandum and a Legislative Reference Bureau (“L.”
City of Madison v. Hyland, Hall & Co., 243 N.W.2d 422 (Wis. 1976). · cites it 7× “Defendants demurred to the second amended complaint on the following grounds: (1) Plaintiffs have no standing to sue for treble damages under sec. 133.01, Stats.; (2) plaintiffs improperly united several causes of action in their second amended complaint; (3) the claims *369 set…”
Conley Publ'g Grp. Ltd. v. Journal Commc'ns, Inc., 2003 WI 119 (Wis. 2003). · cites it 8× “Conley then offers multiple, interrelated reasons for why this court should refrain from adopting the second half of the Brooke Group recoupment standard.”
Open Pantry Food Marts of Se. Wisconsin, Inc. v. Falcone, 286 N.W.2d 149 (Wis. Ct. App. 1979). · cites it 13× “Also, he demanded that Open Pantry pay him for the debts he incurred in order to run his business.”
Clean Wisconsin, Inc. v. Pub. Serv. Comm'n of Wisconsin, 2005 WI 93 (Wis. 2005). · cites it 4× “It argues that the focus on entry of competitors is supported by the state's policy of fostering competitive marketplaces as stated in Wis. Stat. § 133.01 : 133.01. Legislative intent.”
Show all 75 citing cases →
— Wis. Stat. § 133.01(1) — 7 cases
Grams v. Boss, 294 N.W.2d 473 (Wis. 1980). “[1973] 4 and not Wisconsin’s mini-Sherman Act [sec. 133.01, Stats.].” The circuit court also stated that even if a claim for “restraint of trade” under sec.”
Heyde Companies v. Dove Healthcare, LLC, 2002 WI 131 (Wis. 2002). “To the extent that Dove relies on broader arguments under Wis. Stat. § 133.01 , which the majority does not address, its attempt to invalidate the no-hire provision must also fail.”
Indep. Milk Producers Co-Op v. Stoffel, 298 N.W.2d 128 (Wis. Ct. App. 1980).
Chapiewsky v. G. Heileman Brewing Co., 297 F. Supp. 33 (W.D. Wis. 1968).
Fields Found., Ltd. v. Christensen, 309 N.W.2d 125 (Wis. Ct. App. 1981).
— Wis. Stat. § 133.01(3) — 1 case
State v. Waste Mgmt. of Wisconsin, Inc., 261 N.W.2d 147 (Wis. 1978).
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.