Wisconsin Statutes
Wis. Stat. § 425.107 (2026)
Unconscionability
✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
WI-LEGdocs.legis.wisconsin.gov
JustiaChapter on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
425.107(1)(1) With respect to a consumer credit transaction, if the court as a matter of law finds that any aspect of the transaction, any conduct directed against the customer by a party to the transaction, or any result of the transaction is unconscionable, the court shall, in addition to the remedy and penalty authorized in sub. (5), either refuse to enforce the transaction against the customer, or so limit the application of any unconscionable aspect or conduct to avoid any unconscionable result.
425.107(2)(2) Specific practices forbidden by the administrator in rules promulgated pursuant to s. 426.108 shall be presumed to be unconscionable.
425.107(3)(3) Without limiting the scope of sub. (1), the court may consider, among other things, the following as pertinent to the issue of unconscionability:
425.107(3)(a)(a) That the practice unfairly takes advantage of the lack of knowledge, ability, experience or capacity of customers;
425.107(3)(b)(b) That those engaging in the practice know of the inability of customers to receive benefits properly anticipated from the goods or services involved;
425.107(3)(c)(c) That there exists a gross disparity between the price of goods or services and their value as measured by the price at which similar goods or services are readily obtainable by other customers, or by other tests of true value;
425.107(3)(d)(d) That the practice may enable merchants to take advantage of the inability of customers reasonably to protect their interests by reason of physical or mental infirmities, illiteracy or inability to understand the language of the agreement, ignorance or lack of education or similar factors;
425.107(3)(f)(f) That the terms of the transaction require customers to unreasonably jeopardize money or property beyond the money or property immediately at issue in the transaction;
425.107(3)(g)(g) That the natural effect of the practice would reasonably cause or aid in causing customers to misunderstand the true nature of the transaction or their rights and duties thereunder;
425.107(3)(h)(h) That the writing purporting to evidence the obligation of the customer in the transaction contains terms or provisions or authorizes practices prohibited by law; and
425.107(3)(i)(i) Definitions of unconscionability in statutes, regulations, rulings and decisions of legislative, administrative or judicial bodies.
425.107(4)(4) Any charge or practice expressly permitted by chs. 421 to 427 and 429 is not in itself unconscionable but even though a practice or charge is authorized by chs. 421 to 427 and 429, the totality of a creditor’s conduct may show that such practice or charge is part of an unconscionable course of conduct.
425.107(5)(5) In addition to the protections afforded in sub. (1), the customer shall be entitled upon a finding of unconscionability to recover from the creditor or the person responsible for the unconscionable conduct a remedy and penalty in accordance with s. 425.303.
425.107 AnnotationWhen a lender was promptly informed that a borrower had a valid disability insurance claim that would cover payments, it was an unconscionable practice to include an unpaid monthly charge that would be covered by the disability insurance in computing the unpaid balance for purposes of establishing default. Bank One Milwaukee, N.A. v. Harris, 209 Wis. 2d 412, 563 N.W.2d 543 (Ct. App. 1997), 96-0903.
425.107 AnnotationThe scope language of s. 425.102 bars a customer from bringing a claim of unconscionability under this section except in response to “actions or other proceedings brought by a creditor.” Discussing whether a nonjudicial repossession pursuant to s. 425.206 (1) (d) is such an action or other proceeding. Duncan v. Asset Recovery Specialists, Inc., 2022 WI 1, 400 Wis. 2d 1, 968 N.W.2d 661, 19-1365.
425.107 AnnotationWhen a creditor files a lawsuit against a debtor to enforce a loan agreement, that triggers the potential for an unconscionability counterclaim. The fact that the creditor moves for voluntary dismissal of its claim before the debtor brings the unconscionability counterclaim does not prevent the debtor from pursuing it. Section 425.102 does not require dismissal of the counterclaim. CreditBox.com, LLC v. Weathers, 2023 WI App 37, 408 Wis. 2d 715, 993 N.W.2d 802, 22-0746.
425.107 AnnotationThis section provides a defense to an action brought by a creditor and does not constitute an affirmative claim for relief. Gable v. Universal Acceptance Corp. (WI), 338 F. Supp. 3d 943 (2018). But see CreditBox.com, LLC v. Weathers, 2023 WI App 37, 408 Wis. 2d 715, 993 N.W.2d 802, 22-0746.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 20
cases (9 in the last 5 years), 1988–2025 · leading case: Danelle Duncan v. Asset Recovery Specialists, Inc., 2022 WI 1 (Wis. 2022).
Danelle Duncan v. Asset Recovery Specialists, Inc., 2022 WI 1 (Wis. 2022). “In her complaint, Duncan also alleged that Defendants' conduct during and after the repossession was unconscionable in violation of Wis. Stat. § 425.107 . We hold that claims of unconscionability under § 425.”
Wisconsin Auto Title Loans, Inc. v. Jones, 2006 WI 53 (Wis. 2006). “willfully and knowingly conceals consumer loan transaction costs to its customers, imposes loan interest and other finance charges without proper disclosures, engages in collection practices without properly advising its customers of their rights and obligations, and imposes…”
Creditbox.com, LLC v. Antjuan Weathers, 2023 WI App 37 (Wis. Ct. App. 2023). “The circuit court here reasoned that Weathers cannot pursue this counterclaim against CreditBox because the dismissal of CreditBox’s claim left no “actions or other proceedings brought by a creditor” pending against Weathers.”
Sec. Fin. v. Brian Kirsch, 926 N.W.2d 167 (Wis. 2019). “104 addresses creditors 7 See Wis. Stat. § 425.107 (providing for remedies and penalties under Wis.”
Danelle Duncan v. Asset Recovery Specialists, Inc., 2020 WI App 54 (Wis. Ct. App. 2020). “2018) (“Three separate courts have now held that [§ 425.107] provides a defense to an action brought by a creditor and does not constitute an affirmative claim for relief.”
Gable v. Universal Acceptance Corp., 338 F. Supp. 3d 943 (E.D. Wis. 2018). “Wis. Stat. § 425.107 (1). Three separate courts have now held that this section provides a defense to an action brought by a creditor and does not constitute an affirmative claim for relief.”
Footville State Bank v. Harvell, 432 N.W.2d 122 (Wis. Ct. App. 1988). “Morris next argues that his entire obligation to respondents is void and unenforceable under sec. 425.107, Stats. Morris notes that because he did not request the credit card, the transaction violated Wis.”
VanHuss v. Kohn Law Firm S.C., 127 F. Supp. 3d 980 (W.D. Wis. 2015). “104(l)(j) of the WCA, which states that a debt collector may not “[c]laim, or attempt or threaten to enforce a right with knowledge or reason to know that the right does not exist,” 8 and Section 425.107 of the WCA, which states that if a court finds as a matter of law that some…”
Bank One Milwaukee, N.A. v. Harris, 563 N.W.2d 543 (Wis. Ct. App. 1997). “Although our statutes do not define "unconscionable," § 425.107(1), and 425.107(3), STATS., generally describe practices related to consumer credit transactions that are "pertinent to the issue of unconscionability.”
River Bank of DeSoto v. Fisher, 556 N.W.2d 324 (Wis. 1996). “1 The parties were ordered to brief whether such fees could be awarded under the Wisconsin Consumer Act (Act) or otherwise even though we did not find unconscionability under Wis. Stat. § 425.107 (1991-92), 2 the only Act provision alleged by defendant-respondent-petitioner,…”
Suburban State Bank v. Squires, 427 N.W.2d 393 (Wis. Ct. App. 1988). “Squires also challenges the trial court’s determination that the bank’s actions were not unconscionable as defined in sec. 425.107, Stats. Again, however, we have no means of reviewing the trial court’s determination due to the lack of a record and must presume the existence of…”
River Bank of De Soto v. Fisher, 550 N.W.2d 429 (Wis. 1996). “The circuit court had concluded that the plaintiff-appellant River Bank of De Soto's (Bank) conduct throughout a consumer loan transaction was "unconscionable" under the Wisconsin Consumer Act, Wis. Stat. §425.107 (1991-92) 1 , thereby relieving.”
— Wis. Stat. § 425.107(1) — 10 cases
Danelle Duncan v. Asset Recovery Specialists, Inc., 2020 WI App 54 (Wis. Ct. App. 2020). “2018) (“Three separate courts have now held that [§ 425.107] provides a defense to an action brought by a creditor and does not constitute an affirmative claim for relief.”
Danelle Duncan v. Asset Recovery Specialists, Inc., 2022 WI 1 (Wis. 2022). “In her complaint, Duncan also alleged that Defendants' conduct during and after the repossession was unconscionable in violation of Wis. Stat. § 425.107 . We hold that claims of unconscionability under § 425.”
Footville State Bank v. Harvell, 432 N.W.2d 122 (Wis. Ct. App. 1988). “Morris next argues that his entire obligation to respondents is void and unenforceable under sec. 425.107, Stats. Morris notes that because he did not request the credit card, the transaction violated Wis.”
Creditbox.com, LLC v. Antjuan Weathers, 2023 WI App 37 (Wis. Ct. App. 2023). “The circuit court here reasoned that Weathers cannot pursue this counterclaim against CreditBox because the dismissal of CreditBox’s claim left no “actions or other proceedings brought by a creditor” pending against Weathers.”
River Bank of De Soto v. Fisher, 550 N.W.2d 429 (Wis. 1996). “The circuit court had concluded that the plaintiff-appellant River Bank of De Soto's (Bank) conduct throughout a consumer loan transaction was "unconscionable" under the Wisconsin Consumer Act, Wis. Stat. §425.107 (1991-92) 1 , thereby relieving.”
— Wis. Stat. § 425.107(2) — 1 case
Footville State Bank v. Harvell, 432 N.W.2d 122 (Wis. Ct. App. 1988). “Morris next argues that his entire obligation to respondents is void and unenforceable under sec. 425.107, Stats. Morris notes that because he did not request the credit card, the transaction violated Wis.”
— Wis. Stat. § 425.107(3) — 3 cases
Danelle Duncan v. Asset Recovery Specialists, Inc., 2022 WI 1 (Wis. 2022). “In her complaint, Duncan also alleged that Defendants' conduct during and after the repossession was unconscionable in violation of Wis. Stat. § 425.107 . We hold that claims of unconscionability under § 425.”
Landmark Credit Union v. Ralph W. Streuly (Wis. Ct. App. 2025).
Landmark Credit Union v. Ralph W. Streuly (Wis. Ct. App. 2025).
— Wis. Stat. § 425.107(3)(a) — 4 cases
Danelle Duncan v. Asset Recovery Specialists, Inc., 2022 WI 1 (Wis. 2022). “In her complaint, Duncan also alleged that Defendants' conduct during and after the repossession was unconscionable in violation of Wis. Stat. § 425.107 . We hold that claims of unconscionability under § 425.”
Bank One Milwaukee, N.A. v. Harris, 563 N.W.2d 543 (Wis. Ct. App. 1997). “Although our statutes do not define "unconscionable," § 425.107(1), and 425.107(3), STATS., generally describe practices related to consumer credit transactions that are "pertinent to the issue of unconscionability.”
Landmark Credit Union v. Ralph W. Streuly (Wis. Ct. App. 2025).
Landmark Credit Union v. Ralph W. Streuly (Wis. Ct. App. 2025).
— Wis. Stat. § 425.107(3)(d) — 1 case
Bank One Milwaukee, N.A. v. Harris, 563 N.W.2d 543 (Wis. Ct. App. 1997). “Although our statutes do not define "unconscionable," § 425.107(1), and 425.107(3), STATS., generally describe practices related to consumer credit transactions that are "pertinent to the issue of unconscionability.”
— Wis. Stat. § 425.107(3)(i) — 1 case
Creditbox.com, LLC v. Antjuan Weathers, 2023 WI App 37 (Wis. Ct. App. 2023). “The circuit court here reasoned that Weathers cannot pursue this counterclaim against CreditBox because the dismissal of CreditBox’s claim left no “actions or other proceedings brought by a creditor” pending against Weathers.”
— Wis. Stat. § 425.107(5) — 2 cases
Danelle Duncan v. Asset Recovery Specialists, Inc., 2022 WI 1 (Wis. 2022). “In her complaint, Duncan also alleged that Defendants' conduct during and after the repossession was unconscionable in violation of Wis. Stat. § 425.107 . We hold that claims of unconscionability under § 425.”
Creditbox.com, LLC v. Antjuan Weathers, 2023 WI App 37 (Wis. Ct. App. 2023). “The circuit court here reasoned that Weathers cannot pursue this counterclaim against CreditBox because the dismissal of CreditBox’s claim left no “actions or other proceedings brought by a creditor” pending against Weathers.”
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.