An Act to amend 106.50 (2r) (br) 2., 106.50 (2r) (br) 5., 106.50 (2r) (br) 6. and 106.52 (1) (fm); to create 106.52 (1) (fs) and 106.52 (6) of the statutes; Relating to: emotional support animals in housing; falsely claiming that an animal is a service animal; and providing a penalty. (FE)
Summary
AB366 revises Wisconsin law governing emotional support animals in housing and service animals in public accommodations. In the housing context, the bill allows landlords, lessors, and condominium representatives to require documentation not only of a disability-related need for an emotional support animal from a licensed health professional, but also a prescription for the animal. It also creates or strengthens forfeiture penalties for false documentation and for health professionals who provide prescriptions without at least a 30-day patient-provider relationship.
For public places of accommodation or amusement, the bill narrows and clarifies the definition of “service animal” to align more closely with federal ADA standards, limiting it to a dog or miniature horse that is individually trained or being trained to perform tasks for a person with a disability. It also creates a new offense for intentionally misrepresenting that a person is in possession of a service animal in such places, with forfeitures and possible community service penalties for repeat violations. In addition, the Department of Workforce Development must prepare optional signage and an informational brochure for businesses explaining service-animal rights and lawful ways to address suspected misrepresentation.
Impact
The bill would amend Wisconsin’s fair housing and public accommodations statutes, especially s. 106.50 and s. 106.52, by adding new documentation requirements, penalties, and definitions related to emotional support animals and service animals. It would give housing providers more authority to request prescription documentation and would impose minimum forfeitures on individuals and health professionals involved in false emotional-support-animal claims. It would also create a new state-law penalty for service-animal misrepresentation in businesses and public venues, while directing DWD to provide educational materials to businesses upon request.
Sentiment
The available voting history suggests the bill was controversial rather than broadly consensual. The Senate rejected Amendment 1 by an 18-15 vote, indicating a fairly close split and some partisan or policy disagreement. The bill ultimately failed to pass notwithstanding the Governor’s objections, which suggests it did not secure enough support to become law despite legislative action. No committee transcript is available, so the record here reflects procedural opposition more than detailed public debate.
Contention
The main points of contention are likely the balance between preventing fraud and protecting people with disabilities. Supporters appear to favor tighter rules to deter false emotional-support-animal claims, clarify what counts as a service animal, and give businesses and housing providers clearer enforcement tools. Opponents may view the prescription requirement and penalties as burdensome or as creating barriers for people who legitimately rely on emotional support animals, and may also question whether the misrepresentation penalties could be difficult to enforce fairly. The bill’s service-animal definition and business-signage provisions also suggest tension between disability-rights advocates and business or property-owner interests.
Crossfiled
An Act to amend 106.50 (2r) (br) 2., 106.50 (2r) (br) 5., 106.50 (2r) (br) 6. and 106.52 (1) (fm); to create 106.52 (1) (fs) and 106.52 (6) of the statutes; Relating to: emotional support animals in housing; falsely claiming that an animal is a service animal; and providing a penalty. (FE)
Person who sells emotional support dogs required to provide notice that the dog is not a service dog, and criminal penalties for misrepresenting service animals increased.
Distinguishes the terms "service animal" and "emotional support animal"; provides that persons with a disability shall be entitled to reasonable housing accommodations for a service animal or emotional support animal, provided that they obtain documentation from a qualified practitioner; provides that certain privileges are restricted to persons with a service animal; provides that a person who fraudulently obtains documentation for a reasonable housing accommodation shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and subject to a fine and community service.