An Act to amend 100.20 (1v), 100.20 (5) and 100.20 (6); to create 100.2085 of the statutes; Relating to: advertising broadband and other Internet speeds and providing a standardized broadband label.
Summary
AB1067 would regulate how broadband and other internet service speeds are advertised and sold in Wisconsin. It would prohibit a provider from advertising or offering service as “broadband” unless the service can consistently deliver at least 100 Mbps download and 20 Mbps upload, or whatever minimum speeds the FCC recognizes as advanced telecommunications capability. It would also prohibit providers from advertising a specific internet speed unless the service can consistently deliver that speed to the consumer.
The bill further requires broadband providers to give consumers a standardized broadband label, using the FCC template, before a sale and to make those labels readily available to potential customers. If a provider sells service that does not meet the advertised broadband or specific-speed claims, and does not fix the problem within one month after written notice, the consumer may cancel the contract and receive a refund of all charges and fees paid. The bill also ties violations to existing state unfair trade practice law and enforcement provisions.
Impact
AB1067 would create new statutory requirements in s. 100.2085 and expand the reach of Wisconsin’s consumer protection laws by making violations of the broadband advertising rules an unfair method of competition and an unfair trade practice under s. 100.20. It would also allow private lawsuits for double damages and attorney fees, authorize the Department of Agriculture, Trade and Consumer Protection to seek injunctions and investigate violations, and subject violators to existing penalties under current law. The bill would directly affect broadband and internet service providers operating in Wisconsin and give consumers new disclosure, refund, and contract-termination rights.
Sentiment
The bill appears to have been framed as a consumer-protection measure aimed at improving transparency and preventing misleading internet speed claims. The text and structure suggest support for clearer disclosures and enforceable standards for broadband marketing. However, the bill ultimately failed to pass pursuant to Senate Joint Resolution 1, indicating it did not advance to enactment despite its consumer-focused purpose.
Contention
The main point of contention is likely the bill’s strict definition of broadband advertising, which would require providers to meet a 100/20 Mbps threshold or the FCC’s advanced telecommunications benchmark before using the term “broadband.” Providers offering lower-tier or variable-speed services could view this as restrictive, especially where network conditions or service tiers make consistent delivery difficult. Another likely issue is the private right of action with double damages and attorney fees, which increases litigation exposure for providers. No committee transcript or recorded vote information is available here, so the specific arguments for or against the bill are not documented in the provided materials.
Crossfiled
An Act to amend 100.20 (1v), 100.20 (5) and 100.20 (6); to create 100.2085 of the statutes; Relating to: advertising broadband and other Internet speeds and providing a standardized broadband label.