Wisconsin Statutes

Wis. Stat. § 421.106 (2026)

Settlement of claims; agreement to forego rights; waiver

✓ current as of July 2026

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

421.106421.106 Settlement of claims; agreement to forego rights; waiver.

421.106(1)(1) Except as otherwise provided in chs. 421 to 427, a customer may not waive or agree to forego rights or benefits under chs. 421 to 427.

421.106(2)(2) A claim by a customer against a merchant for an excess charge, other violation of chs. 421 to 427 or civil penalty, or a claim against a customer for default or breach of a duty imposed by chs. 421 to 427, if disputed in good faith, may be settled by agreement.

421.106(3)(3) A claim, whether or not disputed, against a customer may be settled for less value than the amount claimed.

421.106(4)(4) A settlement in which the customer waives or agrees to forego rights or benefits under chs. 421 to 427 is invalid if the court as a matter of law finds the settlement to be unconscionable at the time it was made. In this regard the court may consider the competence of the customer as measured by his or her education, ability to speak and read the language of the contract, and his or her prior consumer experience; any deception or coercion practiced upon the customer; the nature and extent of the legal advice received by the customer; and the value of the consideration.

421.106 HistoryHistory: 1971 c. 239; 1979 c. 89.

421.106 AnnotationThe holding in Concepcion, 563 U.S. 333 (2011), is clear: the Federal Arbitration Act preempts any state law, including sub. (1) and s. 426.110 (1), that classifies an arbitration agreement as unconscionable, and therefore unenforceable, simply because the agreement prohibits an individual from proceeding as a member of a class. Accordingly, under Concepcion, the waiver of classwide proceedings in the borrower’s arbitration agreement with the payday lender did not render the agreement substantively unconscionable. Cottonwood Financial, LTD v. Estes, 2012 WI App 12, 339 Wis. 2d 472, 810 N.W.2d 852, 09-0760.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 4 cases, 2007–2018 · leading case: Coady v. Cross Country Bank, Inc., 2007 WI App 26 (Wis. Ct. App. 2007).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Coady v. Cross Country Bank, Inc., 2007 WI App 26 (Wis. Ct. App. 2007). · cites it 2× “Wis. Stat. § 421.106 (1). Cross Country thus interprets the Act to prohibit class action waivers like the one in its credit card agreement.”

Cottonwood Fin., Ltd. v. Estes, 2012 WI App 12 (Wis. 2012). · cites it 2× “See Wis. Stat. § 421.106 (1) (stating that "a customer may not waive or agree to forego rights or benefits under" the Consumer Act); Wis.”

Cottonwood Fin., Ltd. v. Estes, 2010 WI App 75 (Wis. Ct. App. 2010). · cites it 2× “) This provision runs afoul of Wis. Stat. § 421.106 (1), which provides, "[A] customer may not waive or agree to forego rights or benefits under" the consumer act.”

State ex rel. Beck v. Lamb, 918 N.W.2d 643 (Wis. Ct. App. 2018). · cites it 2× “12 (no waiver by an employee of unemployment insurance rights "shall be valid"); Wis. Stat. §§ 421.106 (1) and 422.506 (barring or voiding waiver of certain consumer rights); and Wis.”

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.