Practice Changes

Beginning January 1, 2027, a licensee must disclose whenever advertising has been altered or modified using technology, including artificial intelligence (AI), to add, remove or change elements of a property in a way that creates a false or misleading impression of the property.

No. The disclosure requirement is not triggered simply because AI or another technology was used. The requirement applies when technology is used to add, remove or change elements of the property in a manner that creates a false or misleading impression of the property.

No. Although the law specifically references AI, it applies to any technology used to alter or modify advertising if the result creates a false or misleading impression of the property.

Yes. The practice changes apply to advertising regardless of the medium used. If a licensee advertises a property on social media, a website, email, printed materials or another advertising platform, any required disclosure should be included in that advertising.

Yes. Virtual staging requires disclosure if virtual staging adds furnishings or other features that were not present when the photograph was taken. Because the image has been altered using technology, the advertisement should disclose that the image has been virtually staged.

It depends. If technology is used to remove items from an image and the result creates a false or misleading impression of the property's condition or appearance, a disclosure is required.

Potentially. If technology changes the appearance of the property in a way that creates a false or misleading impression, the advertisement must include the required disclosure.

Yes. If technology is used to show renovations or improvements that do not currently exist, the advertisement should clearly disclose that the images have been digitally altered.

Yes. Removing permanent features using technology may create a false or misleading impression of the property and requires disclosure.

Generally, no. Routine photographic editing that improves image quality without creating a false or misleading impression of the property would not ordinarily require disclosure.

Generally, no. Minor edits that improve the quality or composition of a photograph without altering the property itself are not the type of modifications addressed by the law.

The statute requires disclosure that the advertising has been altered or modified using technology when the alteration creates a false or misleading impression. The law does not prescribe specific language. A simple statement such as "Image has been digitally altered," "Virtually staged" or "Rendering depicts possible renovations" may be appropriate, depending on the circumstances. A firm may develop its own standardized language for use in its advertising. Any firm-developed disclosure should be clear, accurate and consistent with the practice changes.

The statute requires disclosure in the advertising. As a best practice, licensees should make the disclosure clear and conspicuous so consumers understand which images have been altered.

No. The practice changes do not prohibit the use of AI or other technology in real estate advertising. Rather, they require transparency when technology is used to alter an image in a way that creates a false or misleading impression of the property.

Licensees are responsible for ensuring that their advertising complies with Wisconsin law. If a licensee uses advertising prepared by a third party, the licensee should verify that any required disclosures are included before the advertising is published. Licensees should also follow any company policies regarding advertising disclosures.

No. Whether an image creates a false or misleading impression depends on the nature and extent of the modification. Routine editing that improves image quality generally does not create a false or misleading impression. However, adding, removing or changing significant features of the property may require disclosure under the practice changes.

Yes. The practice changes establish the minimum legal requirements for disclosure. A real estate firm may choose to adopt internal policies requiring additional disclosures for advertising, including disclosures for certain types of image enhancements or editing that may not otherwise require disclosure under the law.

For example, a firm may require disclosure whenever a photograph has been digitally edited or enhanced, even if the edits would not independently require disclosure under the practice changes. Licensees should follow both Wisconsin law and their firm's advertising policies.

Yes. The practice changes do not prescribe specific disclosure language. A real estate firm may adopt standardized disclosure language to promote consistency in its advertising, provided the disclosure is clear, accurate and consistent with the practice changes.

The practice changes are intended to promote transparency and help consumers understand when technology has materially altered the appearance of a property. The goal is not to prohibit the use of technology, but to ensure that buyers receive accurate information and are not misled by digitally modified advertising.

No. These compensation provisions apply only to residential properties containing one to four dwelling units. Transactions involving other property types are not subject to these specific restrictions.

No. Beginning January 1, 2027, one firm may not pay compensation of any kind to another firm for brokerage services performed in connection with the sale of a residential property containing one to four dwelling units. This prohibition applies regardless of the brokerage relationship between the firms. Referral fees and finder's fees permitted under Wisconsin law are not affected.

No. The law does not prohibit seller-paid compensation; rather, it changes how that compensation is documented. A seller may agree to pay all or part of the buyer's firm's compensation, provided the agreement is negotiated and expressly documented in the fully executed offer to purchase signed by both the buyer and seller. The payment is made directly by the seller to the buyer's firm, not by the listing firm.

Yes. A buyer may include a request in the offer to purchase asking the seller to pay compensation to the buyer's firm. The seller is under no obligation to agree and may accept, reject, or counter the request as part of the overall negotiation of the offer.

Yes. The amount of compensation is negotiable. A seller may accept, reject, or counter a buyer's request that the seller pay compensation to the buyer's firm just like they can with any other offer term. If the parties reach an agreement, it must be included in the fully executed offer to purchase.

Yes. Compensation is a negotiable term of the offer to purchase. Just as a seller may negotiate price, closing date, or other contract terms, the seller may negotiate whether to pay compensation to the buyer's firm and, if so, the amount of that compensation. Any agreement must be reflected in the executed offer to purchase.

The seller pays the buyer's firm directly as provided in the executed offer to purchase. The payment is not made by the listing firm because Wisconsin law prohibits one firm from paying compensation to another firm in connection with brokerage services involving residential properties containing one to four dwelling units.

No. A firm working with the buyer may not receive compensation from the seller unless the agreement is documented in the executed offer to purchase. Verbal agreements or side agreements that are not incorporated into the executed contract do not satisfy the statutory requirements.

Yes. Provided the buyer and seller mutually agree, the parties may amend the offer to purchase to include a seller-paid compensation provision. Because the law requires the agreement to be documented in the executed offer to purchase, any subsequent agreement should be incorporated into the contract through a written amendment signed by both parties.

No. A listing contract may not require or imply that the seller will pay compensation to another firm unless that obligation is contingent upon its inclusion in the executed offer to purchase. Whether the seller agrees to pay another firm's compensation is determined during negotiation of the offer.

Listing contracts will include a provision asking whether the seller authorizes the listing firm to disclose that the seller may be willing to pay compensation to another firm. This authorization permits disclosure of the seller's willingness to consider such compensation but does not create an obligation to pay it.

Yes. If the seller authorizes the disclosure in the listing contract, the listing firm may disclose that the seller is willing to consider paying compensation to a firm working with the buyer. However, any actual agreement for the seller to pay that compensation must be negotiated and documented in the executed offer to purchase.

The law permits a seller to agree to pay compensation to a firm working with the buyer-customer provided the agreement is negotiated and documented in the executed offer to purchase. However, a subagent working with a buyer-customer continues to owe duties to the seller and may not place the subagent's own interests ahead of the seller's interests. Whether a subagent's request that the seller pay the subagent's compensation is consistent with those duties will depend on the specific facts and circumstances of the transaction.

No. The prohibition on firm-to-firm compensation does not apply to referral fees or finder's fees that are otherwise permitted under Wisconsin law.

Any agreement or arrangement that violates the statutory prohibition on firm-to-firm compensation is void and unenforceable.

These practice changes apply to residential properties containing one to four dwelling units and are designed to promote transparency and broad market access.

The practice changes require listed properties to be publicly marketed in a timely manner and encourage cooperation with buyer and tenant representatives. However, sellers retain the right to limit or withhold public marketing of their property if they choose. To do so, sellers must sign a required disclosure and opt-out form acknowledging their decision. Sellers must also understand and acknowledge the potential risks associated with reduced market exposure, including the possibility of reaching fewer prospective buyers and potentially affecting the property's market opportunities.

Under the practice changes, listing firms are required to cooperate with agents representing buyers by sharing property information, responding to inquiries in a timely manner, and making the property available for showings.

In addition, unless the seller has signed the appropriate opt-out forms, the listing firm must publicly market the property within one business day of the start date of the listing contract.

The property must be advertised on one or more publicly accessible internet platforms within one business day of the start of the listing contract. The advertising platform must be available to the general public and accessible to agents working with prospective buyers, ensuring broad exposure of the property to the marketplace.

Each listing contract includes a provision identified at "Term of the Contract." It includes a start date and an end date. The start date triggers the requirement to publicly market the property within one business day.

All licensees must comply with Wisconsin law. MLS participants must also comply with applicable MLS rules.

Absolutely. Sellers decide how their property will be marketed, including choosing a private marketing approach. Opting out requires the prescribed disclosure and opt-out agreement. The seller can opt out of public marketing for a few days, a few weeks, or the duration of the listing contract.

There will be a place for a seller to acknowledge that:

• Agents and buyers might not know the property is for sale.

• The seller's property will not appear on public real estate websites or internet listing platforms.

• Interested parties may be unaware of the terms and conditions of the offering.

• Limited exposure may reduce the number of offers and could negatively impact the sale price and other terms available to the seller.

Yes. A seller may choose to restrict access to their property from certain individuals, provided the restriction is not based on a person's membership in a protected class. This means the property owner may identify specific agents and prospective buyers with whom the property owner does not wish to work or allow to view the property.

If a seller later regrets choosing to limit public marketing, the seller's acknowledgment in the required disclosure and opt-out agreement documents that the seller understood the potential consequences of that decision.

A licensee is not civilly liable for disclosures or representations made in fulfilling these statutory duties unless the licensee knowingly makes a false, deceptive, or misleading representation.

The WB forms are being revised to address the opt-out provisions for a seller. The goal is to have an optional use date of October 1, 2026, and a mandatory use date of January 1, 2027.

The law also requires the Real Estate Examining Board to create a consumer brochure. The brochure will be available on the Wisconsin Department of Professional Services (DSPS) website and will be referenced in the listing contracts and the opt-out agreement.

The brochure will be designed to help sellers make informed decisions about how their property is marketed. The brochure will explain the benefits of broad public marketing, including increased property exposure and the potential to attract a larger pool of buyers.

It will also outline the potential effects of limiting a property's marketing, the purpose and implications of signing a disclosure and opt-out agreement, and how marketing restrictions may impact buyer competition, market exposure, and the property's sale price.

In addition, the brochure will provide sample questions sellers can ask their listing firm to better understand available marketing strategies and the potential outcomes of different marketing approaches.