An Act to create 704.44 (11) and 704.60 of the statutes; Relating to: algorithmic software for residential housing, and providing a penalty.
Summary
AB142 would prohibit the use, sale, licensing, or provision of certain “algorithmic software” for residential housing purposes. The bill defines that software as tools that use algorithms and nonpublic competitor data about rents, occupancy rates, lease dates, or similar housing information to inform a landlord’s decisions about rental rates, vacancy choices, or occupancy levels. It also exempts publications of aggregated rental data that do not recommend future rents, and software used to set rent or income limits under affordable housing programs.
The bill creates a new statutory section, 704.60, and adds a related lease provision in 704.44 (11) making void any rental agreement term that waives compliance with the new prohibition or discourages tenants from enforcing it. In practical terms, the bill would bar landlords from using revenue-management or rent-setting software tied to nonpublic competitor data, and would also bar third parties from marketing or supplying such software to residential landlords.
Impact
AB142 would add a new restriction to Wisconsin landlord-tenant law by regulating the use of algorithmic pricing tools in the residential rental market. It would authorize enforcement by the Department of Agriculture, Trade and Consumer Protection, the attorney general, or district attorneys, and would allow the state to seek injunctions and civil forfeitures of up to $1,000 per violation. Tenants would also gain a private right of action for actual damages or statutory damages of $1,000 per violation, plus injunctive relief and attorney fees if they prevail. The bill would affect landlords, software vendors, property managers, and tenants, and would invalidate lease terms that attempt to waive these protections or deter enforcement.
Sentiment
The available record shows the bill was introduced with a broad set of Democratic legislative sponsors and no recorded committee transcript or vote history indicating debate in the materials provided. The overall posture of the bill suggests support for limiting algorithmic rent-setting practices, but the absence of recorded votes or hearing discussion means the public sentiment in the provided record is largely inferred from sponsorship and the bill’s consumer-protection framing. The bill ultimately failed to pass pursuant to Senate Joint Resolution 1.
Contention
The main point of contention is likely the bill’s restriction on revenue-management software and other algorithmic tools used by landlords to set rents or occupancy levels. Supporters would view the measure as a consumer-protection and housing-affordability safeguard against coordinated or opaque pricing practices, while opponents may argue it limits legitimate business tools, interferes with market-based pricing, and could be difficult to define or enforce. Another likely dispute is the private right of action and penalties, which create exposure for landlords and software providers and could be seen as encouraging litigation.
Crossfiled
An Act to create 704.44 (11) and 704.60 of the statutes; Relating to: algorithmic software for residential housing, and providing a penalty.