Wisconsin Statutes
Wis. Stat. § 133.18 (2026)
Treble damages; statute of limitations
✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
WI-LEGdocs.legis.wisconsin.gov
JustiaChapter on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
133.18(1)(a)(a) Except as provided under par. (b), any person injured, directly or indirectly, by reason of anything prohibited by this chapter may sue therefor and shall recover threefold the damages sustained by the person and the cost of the suit, including reasonable attorney fees. Any recovery of treble damages shall, after trebling, be reduced by any payments actually recovered under s. 133.14 for the same injury.
133.18(1)(b)(b) No damages, interest on damages, costs or attorney fees may be recovered under this chapter from any local governmental unit or against any official or employee of a local governmental unit who acted in an official capacity.
133.18(2)(2) A civil action for damages or recovery of payments under this chapter is barred unless commenced within 6 years after the cause of action accrued. When, in a civil class action, a class or subclass is decertified or a class or subclass certification is denied, the statute of limitations provided in this section is tolled as to those persons alleged to be members of the class or subclass for the period from the filing of the complaint first alleging the class or subclass until the decertification or denial.
133.18(3)(3) Whenever any civil or criminal action or proceeding is instituted by the state under this chapter, the running of the statute of limitations in respect of every other right of action based in whole or in part on any matter complained of in the state’s action or proceeding shall be suspended during the pendency thereof and for one year thereafter. The pendency of any such action or proceeding instituted by the state shall not be grounds for staying any other action or discovery in such other action.
133.18(4)(4) A cause of action arising under this chapter does not accrue until the discovery, by the aggrieved person, of the facts constituting the cause of action.
133.18(5)(5) Each civil action under this chapter and each motion or other proceeding in such action shall be expedited in every way and shall be heard at the earliest practicable date.
133.18(6)(6) In a civil action against a person or entity specified in s. 893.80, the amount recovered may not exceed the amount specified in s. 893.80 (3).
133.18 AnnotationFactors to be considered in fixing attorneys’ fees are discussed. Punitive damages may not be awarded in addition to treble damages. John Mohr & Sons, Inc. v. Jahnke, 55 Wis. 2d 402, 198 N.W.2d 363.
133.18 AnnotationPublic policy does not prohibit insurance coverage for statutorily imposed multiple damages. Cieslewicz v. Mutual Service Cas. Ins. Co. 84 Wis. 2d 91, 267 N.W.2d 595 (1978).
133.18 AnnotationThe remedy under this section is confined to violations of this chapter. Gerol v. Arena, 127 Wis. 2d 1, 377 N.W.2d 618 (Ct. App. 1985).
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 56
cases (3 in the last 5 years), 1984–2025 · leading case: E-Z Roll Off, LLC v. Cnty. of Oneida, 2011 WI 71 (Wis. 2011).
E-Z Roll Off, LLC v. Cnty. of Oneida, 2011 WI 71 (Wis. 2011). “The court of appeals reversed, holding that antitrust actions brought pursuant to Wis. Stat. § 133.18 are exempt from the notice of claim requirements found in § 893.”
Meyers v. Bayer AG, Bayer Corp., 2007 WI 99 (Wis. 2007). “, ¶ 61-63 (discussing language now contained in Wis. Stat. § 133.18 providing that "any person injured, directly or indirectly, by reason of anything prohibited by this chapter may sue").”
Olstad v. Microsoft Corp., 2005 WI 121 (Wis. 2005). “Assembly Bill 831 addressed this deficiency in Wis. Stat. § 133.18 , which provides in part: "[A]ny person injured, directly or indirectly, by reason of anything prohibited by this chapter may sue therefor and shall recover threefold the damages sustained by the person .”
Leitinger v. DBart, Inc., 2007 WI 84 (Wis. 2007). “, Wis. Stat. § 133.18 (awarding treble damages for violations of Wisconsin antitrust laws).”
Emergency One, Inc. v. Waterous Co., Inc., 23 F. Supp. 2d 959 (E.D. Wis. 1998). “18(l)(a); specifies a six-year statute of limitations for all *963 civil antitrust actions, running from the discovery of wrongful acts, see Wis. Stat. § 133.18 (2)-(4); and explicitly provides a cause of action for indirect purchasers injured by illegal price-fixing, see Wis.”
The Yacht Club at Sister Bay Condo. Ass'n, Inc. v. Vill. of Sister Bay, 922 N.W.2d 95 (Wis. 2019). “"The legislature did not intend for governmental entities to be exposed to *172 indefinite periods of liability for potential violations of Wis. Stat. § 133.18 . Such a result would be unreasonable given the purposes of the notice of claim requirements found in § 893.”
Prentice v. Title Ins. Co. of Minnesota, 500 N.W.2d 658 (Wis. 1993). “The plaintiffs seek treble damages under sec. 133.18, Stats. [5] The defendants moved to dismiss the complaint on three separate grounds: (1) the filed rate doctrine; (2) the statute of limitation; and (3) an implied exemption from the Wisconsin antitrust laws.”
Gilbertson v. City of Sheboygan, 165 F. Supp. 3d 742 (E.D. Wis. 2016). “This is so because ordinarily a plaintiff has six years to seek damages pursuant to Wis. Stat. § 133.18 .... However, if a plaintiff advances a claim against a governmental entity, it is subject to the notice of claim requirements.”
Learjet, Inc. v. Oneok, Inc., 715 F.3d 716 (9th Cir. 2013). “See Wis. Stat. § 133.18 (providing, in relevant part, that "any person injured, directly or indirectly, by reason of anything prohibited buy this chapter may sue therefor and shall recover threefold the damages sustained by the person”) (emphasis added).”
United Food & Com. Workers Unions v. Warner Chilcott Ltd. (In Re Asacol Antitrust Litig.), 907 F.3d 42 (1st Cir. 2018). “210(2) (providing for treble damages); Wis. Stat. § 133.18 (1)(a) (same) with Fla.”
Comes v. Microsoft Corp., 646 N.W.2d 440 (Iowa 2002). “Codified Laws § 37-1-33 (enacted in 1980); Wis. Stat. § 133.18 (1)(a) (enacted in 1979).”
Gerol v. Arena, 377 N.W.2d 618 (Wis. Ct. App. 1985). “The major issue is whether treble damages permitted by sec. 133.18(1), Stats., may be awarded in a lawsuit alleging a conspiracy by two or more people to injure a person's reputation or occupation under sec.”
— Wis. Stat. § 133.18(1) — 5 cases
Gerol v. Arena, 377 N.W.2d 618 (Wis. Ct. App. 1985). “The major issue is whether treble damages permitted by sec. 133.18(1), Stats., may be awarded in a lawsuit alleging a conspiracy by two or more people to injure a person's reputation or occupation under sec.”
Union Carbide Corp. v. Superior Court, 679 P.2d 14 (Cal. 1984).
Obstetrical & Gynecological Assocs. of Neenah, S.C. v. Landig, 384 N.W.2d 719 (Wis. Ct. App. 1986).
Ob-gyn Assoc. of Neenah v. Landig, 384 N.W.2d 719 (Wis. Ct. App. 1986).
Szukalski v. Crompton Corp., 726 N.W.2d 304 (Wis. Ct. App. 2006).
— Wis. Stat. § 133.18(1)(a) — 1 case
Carlson & Erickson Builders, Inc. v. Lampert Yards, Inc., 515 N.W.2d 305 (Wis. Ct. App. 1994).
— Wis. Stat. § 133.18(2) — 1 case
E-Z Roll Off, LLC v. Cnty. of Oneida, 2011 WI 71 (Wis. 2011). “The court of appeals reversed, holding that antitrust actions brought pursuant to Wis. Stat. § 133.18 are exempt from the notice of claim requirements found in § 893.”
— Wis. Stat. § 133.18(5) — 1 case
E-Z Roll Off, LLC v. Cnty. of Oneida, 2011 WI 71 (Wis. 2011). “The court of appeals reversed, holding that antitrust actions brought pursuant to Wis. Stat. § 133.18 are exempt from the notice of claim requirements found in § 893.”
— Wis. Stat. § 133.18(6) — 1 case
E-Z Roll Off, LLC v. Cnty. of Oneida, 2011 WI 71 (Wis. 2011). “The court of appeals reversed, holding that antitrust actions brought pursuant to Wis. Stat. § 133.18 are exempt from the notice of claim requirements found in § 893.”
— Wis. Stat. § 133.18(l)(a) — 8 cases
Johnson v. Microsoft Corp., 106 Ohio St. 3d 278 (Ohio 2005).
Carlson & Erickson Builders, Inc. v. Lampert Yards, Inc., 529 N.W.2d 905 (Wis. 1995).
Jauquet Lumber Co. v. Kolbe & Kolbe Millwork Co., 476 N.W.2d 305 (Wis. Ct. App. 1991).
E-Z Roll Off, LLC v. Cnty. of Oneida, 2011 WI 71 (Wis. 2011). “The court of appeals reversed, holding that antitrust actions brought pursuant to Wis. Stat. § 133.18 are exempt from the notice of claim requirements found in § 893.”
Johnson v. Microsoft Corp., 802 N.E.2d 712 (Ohio Ct. App. 2003).
— Wis. Stat. § 133.18(l)(b) — 1 case
E-Z Roll Off, LLC v. Cnty. of Oneida, 2011 WI 71 (Wis. 2011). “The court of appeals reversed, holding that antitrust actions brought pursuant to Wis. Stat. § 133.18 are exempt from the notice of claim requirements found in § 893.”
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.