Wisconsin Statutes

Wis. Stat. § 133.04 (2026)

Price discrimination; intent to destroy competition

✓ current as of July 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WI-LEGdocs.legis.wisconsin.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

133.04133.04 Price discrimination; intent to destroy competition.

133.04(1)(1) No person may discriminate, either directly or indirectly, in price between different purchasers of commodities of like grade and quality, for the purpose or intent of injuring or destroying competition in any level of competition or any person engaged therein.

133.04(2)(2) Any person violating this section may be fined not more than $25,000 or imprisoned in the county jail for not more than one year or both.

133.04(3)(3) As an alternative to the criminal penalty for violation of this section, the department of justice or district attorney may bring an action for a civil forfeiture. In an action for a civil forfeiture under this subsection a person who violates this section may be required to forfeit not more than $25,000.

133.04(4)(4) The provisions of this section as they relate to the business of insurance are superseded by the provisions of chs. 611, 613 and 628.

133.04 HistoryHistory: 1979 c. 209; 1979 c. 355 ss. 131, 132; 1983 a. 215 s. 17.

133.04 AnnotationCivil violations of this section must meet the ordinary civil burden of proof. Carlson & Erickson v. Lampert Yards, 190 Wis. 2d 650, 529 N.W.2d 905 (1995).

133.04 AnnotationPromotional price cutting and section 2 (a) of the Robinson-Patman Act. Gifford. 1976 WLR 1045.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 8 cases, 1950–2017 · leading case: Thomas F. Benson v. City of Madison, 2017 WI 65 (Wis. 2017).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Thomas F. Benson v. City of Madison, 2017 WI 65 (Wis. 2017). · cites it 15× “Reasoning that a city is a "body politic and corporate," we confirmed that was "no contradiction" between Wis. Stat. § 133.04 and Wis. Stat. § 990.”

Krist Oil Co. v. Bernice's Pepsi-Cola of Duluth, Inc., 354 F. Supp. 2d 852 (W.D. Wis. 2005). · cites it 12× “for monetary1, declaratory and injunctive relief for three alleged wrongs: (1) implementing a pricing scheme in violation of Wis. Stat. § 133.04 , Wis. Admin. Code § ATCP 102.”

E-Z Roll Off, LLC v. Cnty. of Oneida, 2011 WI 71 (Wis. 2011). · cites it 2× “03 (unlawful contracts; conspiracies), Wis. Stat. § 133.04 (price discrimination; intent to destroy competition), Wis.”

City of Madison v. Hyland, Hall & Co., 243 N.W.2d 422 (Wis. 1976). · cites it 2× “04, Stats,, *370 or sec. 990.01 (26), and that, even if they were, they are not “transacting or doing business in this state” within the meaning of sec.”

Carlson & Erickson Builders, Inc. v. Lampert Yards, Inc., 515 N.W.2d 305 (Wis. Ct. App. 1994). · cites it 18× “[3] The jury also found that Lampert violated the provisions of §133.04, [4] by engaging in price discrimination between *226 different purchasers with intent to injure or destroy competition.”

State v. Retail Gasoline Dealers Ass'n of Milwaukee, Inc., 41 N.W.2d 637 (Wis. 1950). “Appellants submit that sec. 133.04, Stats., grants the defendant association exemption from the provisions of sec.”

Obstetrical & Gynecological Assocs. of Neenah, S.C. v. Landig, 384 N.W.2d 719 (Wis. Ct. App. 1986). · cites it 2× “Section 133.04, Stats., requires that the price discrimination must be "for the purpose or intent of injuring or destroying competition.”

Ob-gyn Assoc. of Neenah v. Landig, 384 N.W.2d 719 (Wis. Ct. App. 1986). · cites it 3× “We are further unpersuaded by OB-GYN's argument that language in sec. 133.04, Stats. (the Wisconsin price discrimination statute), clearly provides for a competitive injury element and had the legislature been so inclined, it could have instituted the same language for sec.”

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.