Wisconsin’s AI listing advertising rule: Act 69 and § 452.136(1m)

The clause that makes Wisconsin different

No — on the statute’s text, only on alterations that create a false or misleading impression of the property. That is a materially narrower trigger than California’s, which reaches any addition, removal, or change to a named element regardless of whether it misleads.

Wis. Stat. § 452.136(1m) closes with "that creates a false or misleading impression of the property," and that clause qualifies the alteration rather than sitting beside it. So an edit is inside the Wisconsin duty only when it both changes elements of the property and produces a misleading impression. Ordinary virtual staging that a reasonable buyer would not be misled by — an empty room shown furnished, clearly presented as staging — is arguably outside § 452.136(1m) altogether, where the identical image in California is squarely within § 10140.8. Two cautions against reading that as permission. The qualifier is untested: no Wisconsin court or Real Estate Examining Board decision has construed it, because the provision is not operative until January 1, 2027. And it changes nothing about the rest of the rulebook — your MLS may require a label whatever the statute says, NAR Article 12 still requires a true picture for REALTOR® members, and Wisconsin’s general misrepresentation and deceptive-advertising law is unaffected.

What the statute says

The entire provision. Read the last eleven words carefully — they decide whether anything else on this page applies to you.

What Act 69 is, precisely

Act

2025 Wisconsin Act 69

Bill

2025 Assembly Bill 456

Session

2025–2026 Legislature

Enacted

2025-12-09

Takes effect

2027-01-01

Codified at

Wis. Stat. § 452.136(1m)

Provision title

Advertising enhanced by technology

Sits within

Chapter 452 of the Wisconsin Statutes — Real Estate Practice

2025 Wisconsin Act 69 is a brokerage reform act. It bans co-broker compensation on residential property of one to four dwelling units, makes public market exposure the default for listings, restricts who may agree to pay for brokerage services provided to a buyer, and — in one subsection inserted into the existing advertising statute — requires a licensee to disclose advertising that technology has altered in a way that creates a false or misleading impression of the property.

Worth stating plainly because the shorthand misleads: Act 69 is a brokerage reform act, not an AI photo law. The advertising provision is one subsection inserted into a statute that already existed. If you arrived here searching for what Act 69 does to commissions, that is the larger part of it and this page does not cover it.

Who it reaches

• A licensee

  Covered. The duty runs to "a licensee" and to no one else by name.

  Wis. Stat. § 452.136(1m) opens "A licensee shall in all advertising disclose…". Chapter 452 defines who holds a licence; the subsection adds no separate category.

• A photographer, marketing vendor, or AI platform

  Not named by the statute.

  Unlike California’s § 10140.8, which reaches "a real estate broker or salesperson, or person acting on their behalf," Wisconsin’s subsection names only the licensee. A vendor is not brought inside the duty by the text. The licensee remains responsible for their own advertising, and other law — Wisconsin’s deceptive trade practices provisions, the FTC Act — can reach a vendor on its own conduct.

• An unlicensed seller advertising their own property

  Not reached by § 452.136(1m), which is a duty on licensees.

  The provision sits in Chapter 452, which governs real estate practice by licensees. General misrepresentation and advertising law applies to anyone.

What it covers

• All advertising

  Covered, and stated more broadly than California’s. The phrase is "in all advertising," with no medium named and no carve-out.

  Where California speaks of "an advertisement or other promotional material for the sale of real property," Wisconsin says simply "in all advertising." Nothing in the subsection limits it to the MLS, to a website, or to a particular format.

• Sales versus rentals

  Not expressly limited to sales, which is a real difference from California.

  California’s § 10140.8(a)(1) reaches advertising "for the sale of real property," putting rental marketing outside its text. Wisconsin’s § 452.136(1m) contains no equivalent limit — it says "in all advertising" by a licensee. Whether that reaches a licensee’s rental advertising is not settled, and the provision is not operative yet.

• Video and 3D tours

  Not expressly addressed, but "all advertising" is broader than "image."

  The subsection speaks of advertising that has been "altered or modified using technology," not of images specifically. On its face that language does not stop at still photographs. RELTO does not assert a conclusion; confirm with your broker and counsel.

What it asks for — and what it does not

Notice how little is prescribed. No wording, no placement, no prominence standard, no original image. The statute says “disclose” and stops.

1. Wisconsin lawWis. Stat. § 452.136(1m)

   Disclose that the advertising was altered using technology

   The operative verb is "disclose," and the statute prescribes nothing further — no wording, no placement, no prominence standard. That is a genuine gap rather than a licence: a disclosure a reader cannot find is difficult to defend as a disclosure, and the Real Estate Examining Board has not yet said what will satisfy the subsection.

2. Wisconsin lawWis. Stat. § 452.136(1m)

   Only where the alteration creates a false or misleading impression

   The qualifier is the trigger. An alteration that does not create a false or misleading impression of the property is, on the text, outside the duty. This is the clause that makes Wisconsin’s rule narrower than California’s, and it is untested.

3. Wisconsin lawWis. Stat. § 452.136(1m)

   In all advertising

   No medium is named and no platform is carved out. Broader on its face than California’s "advertisement or other promotional material for the sale of real property."

4. Wisconsin lawWis. Stat. § 452.136(1m)

   Nothing about the original image

   Stated because its absence is the most useful thing to know. Wisconsin requires no link, no URL, no QR code, and no unaltered version in the posting. California requires all of that. A workflow built for § 10140.8 satisfies § 452.136(1m) comfortably; the reverse is not true.

What happens if you get it wrong

Administrative and civil. There is no criminal exposure here, which is the other place the California comparison misleads.

• REEBWis. Stat. § 452.14(3)

  Real Estate Examining Board discipline

  What triggers it: A licensee violating any provision of Chapter 452, or engaging in conduct the section separately lists — substantial misrepresentation, a continued and flagrant course of misrepresentation through advertising, or improper, fraudulent, or dishonest dealing.

  This is the enforcement path. The Board may reprimand a licensee or revoke, suspend, or limit a licence. Violating a provision of the chapter is itself a listed ground, so a § 452.136(1m) failure can support discipline directly once the provision is operative.

• StatuteWis. Stat. § 452.14(4m)(a)

  Forfeiture

  What triggers it: A disciplinary finding against a licensee.

  The Board may assess against a licensee a forfeiture of not more than $5,000 for each violation enumerated under § 452.14(3), and may require education or training in addition to any education or training required for licensure. That is the monetary ceiling — there is no larger statutory penalty attached to this provision.

• StatuteWis. Stat. ch. 452

  No criminal exposure under Chapter 452

  What triggers it: Not applicable.

  Stated because the California comparison invites the assumption. California’s § 10140.8 sits in a division whose § 10185 makes a willful violation a misdemeanor. Wisconsin’s Chapter 452 has no equivalent general criminal provision reaching a § 452.136(1m) failure. The exposure here is administrative and civil.

• MLS ruleYour MLS’s rules and regulations

  MLS enforcement

  What triggers it: A rule violation under the MLS agreement you signed.

  Independent of the statute and available now rather than in 2027. Metro MLS publishes virtual-staging guidance for its subscribers. An MLS may require a label on an altered image whether or not the alteration misleads — the statutory qualifier does not bind a private rulebook.

• REALTOR® ethicsNAR Code of Ethics, Article 12 and Standard of Practice 12-10

  REALTOR® ethics complaint

  What triggers it: Membership in a REALTOR® association, plus advertising that is misleading.

  Article 12 requires a true picture in advertising; SOP 12-10 prohibits manipulating listing content in a way that produces a deceptive or misleading result and otherwise misleading consumers, including through use of misleading images. Note that the Code has no rule mandating a virtual-staging label — the obligation is the general one not to mislead.

What to actually do

Five steps, and only two of them are the statute — because the statute asks for very little. Each says which it is.

1. 01

   Wisconsin law

   Ask whether the edit could mislead a buyer about the property

   This is the statutory test, not a judgement call layered on top of one. § 452.136(1m) attaches only to an alteration "that creates a false or misleading impression of the property." If the answer is yes, disclose. If you are unsure, the cost of disclosing anyway is zero.

2. 02

   Wisconsin law

   Disclose in the advertising itself, in terms a consumer understands

   § 452.136(1m) requires disclosure "in all advertising" and says nothing about wording or placement. Until the Real Estate Examining Board says otherwise, a label a reader can actually find is the defensible reading.

3. 03

   MLS rule

   Follow your MLS’s rule, which binds you now rather than in 2027

   The statute is not operative until January 1, 2027. Your MLS agreement already is, and an MLS may require a label regardless of whether an alteration misleads.

4. 04

   RELTO recommendation

   Keep the original file and a record of what changed

   RELTO recommendation. Wisconsin requires no original image — unlike California — so nothing compels this. It is still the only way to answer "did this edit mislead?" after the fact, which is the question the statute turns on.

5. 05

   RELTO recommendation

   Review generated images for changes you did not ask for

   RELTO recommendation. A model that silently moves a window or invents a view has changed an element of the property in a way likely to mislead — which is precisely the alteration § 452.136(1m) reaches, arrived at by accident.

Questions Wisconsin agents ask