Wisconsin Statutes
Wis. Stat. § 133.05 (2026)
Secret rebates; unfair trade practices
✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
WI-LEGdocs.legis.wisconsin.gov
JustiaChapter on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
133.05(1)(1) The secret payment or allowance of rebates, refunds, commissions or unearned discounts, whether in the form of money or otherwise, or the secret extension to certain purchasers of special services or privileges not extended to all purchasers purchasing upon like terms and conditions, such payment, allowance or extension injuring or tending to injure a competitor or destroying or tending to destroy competition, is an unfair trade practice and is prohibited.
133.05(2)(2) No person may induce, solicit or receive anything of value which is prohibited under sub. (1).
133.05(3)(3) Any person knowingly 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.
133.05(4)(4) 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.
133.05 AnnotationCompetitive injury is a required element under this section, but intent to injure is not. OB-GYN Assoc. of Neenah v. Landig, 129 Wis. 2d 362, 384 N.W.2d 719 (Ct. App. 1986).
133.05 AnnotationA violation of sub. (1) occurs when a discount, both secret and unearned, tends to injure or injures competition. “Earned” discount is defined. Jauquet Lumber v. Kolbe & Kolbe Millwork, 164 Wis. 2d 689, 476 N.W.2d 305 (Ct. App. 1991).
133.05 AnnotationThis section is not unconstitutionally vague. Knowledge is an element of a violation of sub. (2). Carlson & Erickson v. Lampert Yards, 183 Wis. 2d 220, 515 N.W.2d 305 (Ct. App. 1994).
133.05 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).
133.05 Annotation“Rebates,” “refunds,” and “discounts” in sub. (1) mean essentially the same thing, a reduction or credit that is tied to the price of the good or service being purchased by the recipient of the reduction or credit. To be a “discount” a payment or allowance must be a reduction from the price that would be paid if the “discount” were not given. Tele-Port, Inc. v. Ameritech Mobile Communications, Inc. 2001 WI App 261, 248 Wis. 2d 846, 637 N.W.2d 782, 00-2627.
133.05 AnnotationCivil violations of this section must be proved by clear, satisfactory and convincing evidence.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 11
cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1986–2023 · leading case: Tele-Port, Inc. v. Ameritech Mobile Commc'ns, Inc., 2001 WI App 261 (Wis. Ct. App. 2001).
Tele-Port, Inc. v. Ameritech Mobile Commc'ns, Inc., 2001 WI App 261 (Wis. Ct. App. 2001). “unearned discounts" prohibition of Wis. Stat. § 133.05 (1). This section provides: The secret payment or allowance of rebates, refunds, commissions or unearned discounts, whether in the form of money or otherwise, or the secret extension to certain purchasers of special services…”
Jauquet Lumber Co. v. Kolbe & Kolbe Millwork Co., 476 N.W.2d 305 (Wis. Ct. App. 1991). “03 awarded to Jauquet Lumber Company based upon the trial court's finding that Kolbe engaged in unfair competition in violation of sec. 133.05, Stats. Kolbe raises three issues on appeal.”
E-Z Roll Off, LLC v. Cnty. of Oneida, 2011 WI 71 (Wis. 2011). “04 (price discrimination; intent to destroy competition), Wis. Stat. § 133.05 (se *756 cret rebates; unfair trade practices) and Wis.”
Carlson & Erickson Builders, Inc. v. Lampert Yards, Inc., 515 N.W.2d 305 (Wis. Ct. App. 1994). “Lampert separately argues: (1) § 133.05 violates the constitutional equal protection and the commerce clause; (2) "meeting competition" and "cost justification" defenses were erroneously denied as to the claim under § 133.”
Wisconsin v. Abbott Labs., Amgen, Inc., 341 F. Supp. 2d 1057 (W.D. Wis. 2004). “Count III alleges a violation of the Wisconsin Trust and Monopolies Act, Wis. Stat. § 133.05 . Count IV alleges a claim for fraud on the Wisconsin Medicaid Program, Wis.”
State of Wisconsin v. Abbott Labs., 390 F. Supp. 2d 815 (W.D. Wis. 2005). “Count III alleges a violation of the Wisconsin Trust and Monopolies Act, Wis. Stat. § 133.05 . Count IV alleges a claim for fraud on the Wisconsin Medicaid Program, Wis.”
Obstetrical & Gynecological Assocs. of Neenah, S.C. v. Landig, 384 N.W.2d 719 (Wis. Ct. App. 1986). “This case concerns a species of Wisconsin's anti-trust law, sec. 133.05, Stats. — secret rebates. At issue is statutory interpretation.”
Wisconsin v. Amgen, Inc., 469 F. Supp. 2d 655 (W.D. Wis. 2007). “Count III alleges a violation of the Wisconsin Trust and Monopolies Act, Wis. Stat. § 133.05 . Count IV alleges a claim for fraud on the Wisconsin Medicaid Program, Wis.”
Tele-Port, Inc. v. Ameritech Mobile Commc'ns, Inc., 49 F. Supp. 2d 1089 (E.D. Wis. 1999). “04, and the “secret rebate” law, Wis. Stat. § 133.05 . An Amended Complaint added a tortious interference claim against Car Phones.”
Ob-gyn Assoc. of Neenah v. Landig, 384 N.W.2d 719 (Wis. Ct. App. 1986). “This case concerns a species of Wisconsin's anti-trust law, sec. 133.05, Stats.secret rebates. At issue is statutory interpretation.”
Penebaker, Khary v. Hitt, Andrew (W.D. Wis. 2023). “Plaintiffs counter that their claims do not necessarily raise issues of federal law because they also allege that defendants violated state law. If a claim can be supported independently by both state and federal law theories, “federal question jurisdiction does not attach…”
— Wis. Stat. § 133.05(1) — 4 cases
Tele-Port, Inc. v. Ameritech Mobile Commc'ns, Inc., 2001 WI App 261 (Wis. Ct. App. 2001). “unearned discounts" prohibition of Wis. Stat. § 133.05 (1). This section provides: The secret payment or allowance of rebates, refunds, commissions or unearned discounts, whether in the form of money or otherwise, or the secret extension to certain purchasers of special services…”
Carlson & Erickson Builders, Inc. v. Lampert Yards, Inc., 515 N.W.2d 305 (Wis. Ct. App. 1994). “Lampert separately argues: (1) § 133.05 violates the constitutional equal protection and the commerce clause; (2) "meeting competition" and "cost justification" defenses were erroneously denied as to the claim under § 133.”
Obstetrical & Gynecological Assocs. of Neenah, S.C. v. Landig, 384 N.W.2d 719 (Wis. Ct. App. 1986). “This case concerns a species of Wisconsin's anti-trust law, sec. 133.05, Stats. — secret rebates. At issue is statutory interpretation.”
Ob-gyn Assoc. of Neenah v. Landig, 384 N.W.2d 719 (Wis. Ct. App. 1986). “This case concerns a species of Wisconsin's anti-trust law, sec. 133.05, Stats.secret rebates. At issue is statutory interpretation.”
— Wis. Stat. § 133.05(2) — 1 case
Carlson & Erickson Builders, Inc. v. Lampert Yards, Inc., 515 N.W.2d 305 (Wis. Ct. App. 1994). “Lampert separately argues: (1) § 133.05 violates the constitutional equal protection and the commerce clause; (2) "meeting competition" and "cost justification" defenses were erroneously denied as to the claim under § 133.”
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.