Quick Reference: ATCP 134 at a Glance

A Milwaukee management company uses a lease template it has run for a decade. Buried in it is a clause making the tenant responsible for the landlord's attorney fees in any dispute under the agreement. Standard commercial drafting, and nobody has ever questioned it.

Under ATCP 134.08(4), a rental agreement containing that provision is void and unenforceable.

Not the clause. The agreement. The rule opens: "Notwithstanding s. 704.02, Stats., a rental agreement is void and unenforceable if it does any of the following," and then lists ten things. The rule does not merely identify the offending clause as unenforceable; it states that a rental agreement containing any listed provision is void and unenforceable.

That is what makes ATCP 134 different from an ordinary landlord-tenant statute. It is a trade practice rule adopted under Wis. Stat. § 100.20(2) and administered by the Department of Agriculture, Trade and Consumer Protection. Violations can be prosecuted under §§ 100.20(6) and 100.26(3) or (6). And a person who suffers a monetary loss because of a violation may sue directly under § 100.20(5) and recover twice the loss, plus costs and reasonable attorney's fees.

Most Wisconsin managers know ATCP 134 exists because of the security deposit rules. Far fewer have read § 134.08 against their own lease template. This article is about the parts of the chapter that are not about deposits.

Step 1: The Ten Provisions That Void a Wisconsin Lease

Section 134.08 is short enough to check a template against in an afternoon, and expensive enough to be worth doing.

(1) Retaliation for contacting emergency services. The agreement is void if it allows a landlord to do any of the following because a tenant has contacted an entity for law enforcement services, health services, or safety services:

• (a) Increase rent;

• (b) Decrease services;

• (c) Bring an action for possession of the premises;

• (d) Refuse to renew a rental agreement; or

• (e) Threaten to take any action under (a) to (d).

Note that paragraph (e) reaches a threat, and note the breadth of "an entity for law enforcement services, health services, or safety services." A clause penalising excessive police calls, however reasonably motivated by nuisance concerns, sits squarely inside this subsection.

(2) Self-help eviction. Void if it authorises the eviction or exclusion of a tenant from the premises, other than by judicial eviction procedures as provided under ch. 799. A rental agreement containing a lock-out or exclusion provision is void and unenforceable under ATCP 134.08(2). The judicial route is covered in our guide to the Wisconsin eviction process.

(3) Rent acceleration, and mitigation waivers. Void if it provides for an acceleration of rent payments in the event of tenant default or breach, or otherwise waives the landlord's obligation to mitigate damages as provided under s. 704.29.

Two separate targets in one subsection. An acceleration clause is out. So is any clause that has the effect of waiving mitigation, which is broader than a clause that says so expressly.

(4) The landlord's attorney fees. Void if it requires payment by the tenant of attorney fees or costs incurred by the landlord in any legal action or dispute arising under the rental agreement.

But read the second sentence. The subsection does not prevent a landlord or tenant from recovering costs or attorney fees under a court order under ch. 799 or 814. So a court can still award fees. What the lease cannot do is contract for them in advance.

(5) Confession of judgment. Void if it authorises the landlord or an agent of the landlord to confess judgment against the tenant in any action arising under the agreement.

(6) Disclaiming the landlord's own negligence. Void if it states that the landlord is not liable for property damage or personal injury caused by negligent acts or omissions of the landlord. The subsection expressly does not affect ordinary tenant maintenance obligations under § 704.07 or under the agreement.

This is the exculpatory clause that appears in a great many commercial lease templates. In a Wisconsin residential lease it voids the agreement.

(7) Shifting risk to the tenant. Void if it imposes liability on a tenant for:

• (a) Personal injury arising from causes clearly beyond the tenant's control; or

• (b) Property damage caused by natural disasters, or by persons other than the tenant or the tenant's guests or invitees.

  Again, ordinary maintenance obligations are unaffected.

And an important carve-out. The rule's own note records that a provision requiring the tenant to pay for professional carpet cleaning, in the absence of negligence or improper use by the tenant, does not render a rental agreement void under sub. (7), because routine carpet cleaning is not a statutorily-imposed obligation of a landlord. That is OAG 4-13.

Note the limit carefully: the clause itself may be valid, but routine carpet-cleaning costs cannot be collected in advance as a separate charge if doing so creates a security deposit, and routine carpet cleaning cannot be deducted from the security deposit as normal wear and tear. A separate claim may depend on the lease terms and the circumstances. The deposit-side rules are set out in our guide to Wisconsin security deposit laws.

(8) Waiving habitability. Void if it waives any statutory or other legal obligation on the part of the landlord to deliver the premises in a fit or habitable condition, or to maintain the premises during the tenant's tenancy.

(9) Terminating a crime victim. Void if it allows the landlord to terminate the tenancy of a tenant based solely on the commission of a crime in or on the rental property if the tenant, or someone who lawfully resides with the tenant, is a victim, as defined in s. 950.02(4), of that crime.

(10) The missing § 704.14 notice. Void if it allows the landlord to terminate the tenancy for a crime committed in relation to the rental property and the rental agreement does not include the notice required under s. 704.14.

Subsection (10) is the one that catches otherwise careful drafters, and it is the subsection the Koble litigation was built on. A crime-related termination clause is permitted, but only if the agreement also carries the § 704.14 domestic abuse protections notice. Include the clause, omit the notice, and the agreement is void.

Because the same lease template may be used across many tenancies, a defective provision can create the same legal issue across every agreement using that language until the template is corrected. Auditing the template against all ten subsections, and controlling which version is in circulation through contracts and renewals, is the single highest-value hour a Wisconsin manager can spend.

Step 2: What "Void and Unenforceable" Actually Means After Koble

The consequence is not obvious from the words, and until June 2026 it was genuinely unsettled.

A void rental agreement cannot be enforced as a valid lease. But that does not mean every obligation disappears. In Koble Investments v. Marquardt, 2026 WI 19, decided 5 June 2026, the Wisconsin Supreme Court explained that a tenant occupying premises under a void and unenforceable lease becomes a "periodic tenant" under Wis. Stat. § 704.01(2), obligated to pay rent on whatever basis they had been paying rent under the lease. The practical consequences for rent, eviction, deposits and other claims therefore depend on the resulting tenancy and the specific facts.

That resolves the question landlords had been asking since the Court of Appeals decision in 2024. The law does not allow a tenant to occupy premises rent-free simply because the lease is void.

Two further points from the same decision.

Rent paid is not automatically a loss. The Court held that the tenant had enjoyed the benefit of the bargain, paying rent in exchange for exclusive occupancy, so the rent she paid was not damages she suffered. Because she failed to establish a pecuniary loss caused by the violation, no damages, costs or fees were recoverable under § 100.20(5).

And the Court did not decide whether the lease was void. It held that even if there had been a violation of § 704.44 and the corresponding ATCP provision, the pecuniary-loss failure was dispositive. So the void-lease question in that case was left open.

On deposits specifically, security-deposit deductions are governed separately by ATCP 134.06, including rules on amounts reasonably necessary for permitted claims and on nonstandard rental provisions. A void lease can complicate any claim that depends on an unenforceable lease term.

None of this is a reason to leave a defective clause in a template. A void agreement is a problem whether or not any tenant sues on it, because it converts a negotiated fixed-term arrangement into a periodic tenancy the tenant can end on notice.

Step 3: Prohibited Practices Under ATCP 134.09

Section 134.08 governs what the lease says. Section 134.09 governs what the landlord does, and several of its provisions catch routine operational habits.

Advertising or renting condemned premises, (1). No landlord may rent or advertise for rent any premises which have been placarded and condemned for human habitation, or on which a notice of intent to placard has been issued. The prohibition reaches advertising, not only renting, and it attaches at the notice of intent stage rather than only on condemnation.

Automatic renewal, (3). No landlord shall enforce, or attempt to enforce, an automatic renewal or extension provision in any lease unless, as provided under Wis. Stat. § 704.15, the tenant was given separate written notice of the pending automatic renewal or extension at least 15 days, but no more than 30 days, before its stated effective date.

Read that window precisely. It is a band, not a minimum. Notice at 45 days is as defective as notice at 10. And the notice must be separate, which means a renewal reminder buried in a rent statement or a routine newsletter is unlikely to satisfy it.

For a portfolio with staggered lease dates, a 15-to-30-day window per tenancy is not something a calendar reminder handles reliably. Deriving that window from the lease end date and routing it as a dated task through workflow customization is what turns a band into a process, and holding the lease term and renewal status on one record through lease management is what the derivation runs off.

Confiscating personal property, (4)(a). Except as provided in Wis. Stat. §§ 704.05(5), 704.11 and 779.43, or by express agreement of the parties, a landlord has no right to a lien and is prohibited from seizing or holding a tenant's property.

Three named statutory exceptions and one contractual route. Absent those, holding a tenant's belongings against unpaid rent is a prohibited practice under a rule that carries double damages and criminal exposure.

Section 134.09 contains further subsections addressing other practices, including provisions at (2) and (8). Read the section in full against your operating procedures rather than relying on a summary, because the subsections cover distinct practices rather than variations on one theme.

Step 4: Where the Chapter's Other Sections Sit

ATCP 134 is a compact chapter, and knowing what each section governs helps you find the right rule quickly.

• 134.01 scope and application

• 134.02 definitions, including "rental agreement"

• 134.06 security deposits, including the check-in notice, the 21-day return with three triggers, permitted withholdings and the statement of claims

• 134.08 prohibited rental agreement provisions

• 134.09 prohibited practices

• 134.10 effect of the rules on local ordinances

The definition in 134.02(10) matters more than it looks. A "rental agreement" is an oral or written agreement in which landlord and tenant agree on the essential terms of the tenancy, such as rent, and it includes a lease but does not include an agreement to enter into a rental agreement in the future. The rule's own note adds that by approving an individual as a prospective tenant, a landlord does not necessarily enter into a rental agreement with that individual, or vice versa.

So the § 134.08 void-lease rule reaches oral tenancies too. A month-to-month arrangement with no signed document is still a rental agreement.

And 134.06 is deliberately out of scope here. The deposit rules carry their own timing, notice and documentation requirements, and they are set out in our guide to Wisconsin security deposit laws.

Step 5: How the Enforcement Layers Stack

ATCP 134 is unusual in the number of routes it opens, and managers should understand all three.

The private double-damages action, § 100.20(5). A person who suffers a monetary loss because of a violation may sue the violator directly and recover twice the amount of the loss, together with costs and reasonable attorney's fees. Subject to the pecuniary-loss requirement confirmed in Koble.

Criminal prosecution, §§ 100.20(6) and 100.26(3) or (6). The chapter's own note records that violations may be prosecuted under those provisions.

And DATCP itself. The department administers the chapter and accepts consumer complaints, so a dispute does not have to reach court to become a file.

Local ordinances add a further layer. Section 134.10 governs the relationship between the chapter and local ordinances. Wisconsin municipalities have historically regulated rental practices to differing degrees, so check the ordinance position for each municipality you operate in rather than assuming the state rule is the ceiling.

Because the exposure runs to costs and fees rather than only the underlying amount, the economics of a small dispute change entirely. Note also that Koble attracted class-action filings while the Court of Appeals decision stood, which is a reminder that template defects scale.

Common ATCP 134 Mistakes Property Managers Make

1. Assuming a bad clause is simply unenforceable
Section 134.08 states that a rental agreement containing any listed provision is void and unenforceable, not merely the offending clause.

2. Assuming a void lease means no rent is owed
Under Koble, 2026 WI 19, the tenant becomes a periodic tenant under § 704.01(2), obligated to pay rent on the basis previously established.

3. Carrying a landlord attorney fees clause
Subsection (4) applies, though a court may still award fees under ch. 799 or 814.

4. Carrying an exculpatory clause
Subsection (6) covers an agreement stating the landlord is not liable for damage or injury caused by the landlord's negligence.

5. Carrying a rent acceleration clause
Subsection (3) covers it, and also catches any clause waiving the § 704.29 mitigation duty.

6. Carrying a confession of judgment clause
Subsection (5) applies.

7. Carrying a lock-out or self-help exclusion clause
Subsection (2) covers an agreement authorising eviction or exclusion other than through ch. 799 procedures.

8. Penalising calls to police or emergency services
Subsection (1) covers rent increases, service reductions, possession actions, non-renewal or threats because a tenant contacted law enforcement, health or safety services.

9. Including a crime-related termination clause without the § 704.14 notice
Subsection (10) applies. The clause is permitted; the missing notice is what causes the problem.

10. Allowing termination of a crime victim
Subsection (9) covers termination based solely on a crime where the tenant or a lawful resident is a victim under § 950.02(4).

11. Waiving habitability
Subsection (8) covers any waiver of the duty to deliver or maintain fit and habitable premises.

12. Sending an automatic renewal notice outside the window
Section 134.09(3) requires separate written notice at least 15 but no more than 30 days before the stated effective date.

13. Burying the renewal notice in another document
The notice must be separate.

14. Holding a tenant's property against unpaid rent
Section 134.09(4)(a) prohibits it absent §§ 704.05(5), 704.11 or 779.43 or an express agreement.

15. Advertising a condemned unit
Section 134.09(1) reaches advertising, and attaches once a notice of intent to placard has been issued.

16. Assuming the rule only reaches written leases
Section 134.02(10) defines a rental agreement as oral or written.

17. Treating a technical breach as automatic damages
Under Koble, recovery under § 100.20(5) requires a pecuniary loss caused by the violation, and rent paid in exchange for occupancy received is not itself a loss.

Conclusion

ATCP 134 is not an ordinary landlord-tenant statute, and the difference matters in three ways.

• It is a trade practice rule. Adopted under Wis. Stat. § 100.20(2), administered by DATCP, enforceable privately under § 100.20(5) with double damages, costs and reasonable attorney's fees, and prosecutable under §§ 100.20(6) and 100.26(3) or (6).

• Its void-lease provision is not clause-specific. Section 134.08 lists ten things, and a rental agreement doing any of them is void and unenforceable in its entirety. That does not mean the tenant occupies the property rent-free. Under the Wisconsin Supreme Court's 2026 decision in Koble Investments v. Marquardt, a tenant occupying premises under a void lease becomes a periodic tenant and remains obligated to pay rent on the basis established by the parties.

• Several of the ten are standard commercial drafting: attorney fees clauses, exculpatory clauses, acceleration clauses, confession of judgment. And two are traps rather than obvious errors. Subsection (10) reaches an agreement with a crime-related termination clause that omits the § 704.14 notice, and subsection (7) is qualified by OAG 4-13 on carpet cleaning in a way that does not extend to deposit deductions.

• And the remedy requires proof of loss. Koble confirms that a tenant must establish a pecuniary loss caused by the violation to recover under § 100.20(5), and that rent paid in exchange for occupancy received is not itself such a loss.

For managers running Wisconsin portfolios in Milwaukee, Madison, Green Bay or the Fox Valley, the work here is concentrated rather than continuous. Audit the lease template against all ten subsections of § 134.08, confirm the § 704.14 notice is present if any crime-related termination language is, build the 15-to-30-day renewal window into the workflow, and check the local ordinance position for each municipality.

This blog is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Wisconsin residential rental practices are governed by Wis. Admin. Code ch. ATCP 134, adopted under Wis. Stat. § 100.20(2) and administered by the Department of Agriculture, Trade and Consumer Protection. Section ATCP 134.08 was repealed and recreated by CR 14-038, Register August 2015 No. 716, effective 1 November 2015. Private enforcement arises under Wis. Stat. § 100.20(5). In Koble Investments v. Marquardt, 2026 WI 19, decided 5 June 2026, the Wisconsin Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals, held that the Wisconsin Consumer Act does not govern residential leases, held that recovery requires proof of a pecuniary loss caused by the violation, and stated that a tenant occupying premises under a void and unenforceable lease becomes a periodic tenant under Wis. Stat. § 704.01(2); the Court did not decide whether the lease in that case was void. Legislative activity relating to Wis. Stat. § 704.44 was reported while the appeal was pending, so confirm the current statutory position. Security deposit requirements sit at ATCP 134.06 and are addressed separately. Section ATCP 134.09 contains further subsections not set out here, and ATCP 134.10 governs the effect of the rules on local ordinances; read both in full before relying on a summary. Verify the current rule text with the Wisconsin Legislature and consult a licensed Wisconsin attorney before amending a lease template.

Frequently Asked Questions

Q1. What happens if a Wisconsin lease contains a prohibited clause?
Under ATCP 134.08, the rental agreement is void and unenforceable, not merely the offending provision. That does not mean the tenant owes no rent or may occupy the premises rent-free. Under Koble Investments v. Marquardt, 2026 WI 19, a tenant occupying premises under a void lease becomes a periodic tenant under Wis. Stat. § 704.01(2) and remains obligated to pay rent on the basis established by the parties.

Q2. Can a Wisconsin lease require the tenant to pay the landlord's attorney fees?
No. ATCP 134.08(4) covers an agreement requiring it. A court may still award costs or fees under an order under ch. 799 or 814.

Q3. Can a lease say the landlord is not liable for injury or damage?
No. ATCP 134.08(6) covers an agreement stating the landlord is not liable for property damage or personal injury caused by the landlord's negligent acts or omissions.

Q4. Can a Wisconsin lease include a crime-related termination clause?
Yes, but ATCP 134.08(10) applies if it allows termination for a crime committed in relation to the rental property and the agreement does not include the notice required under Wis. Stat. § 704.14. Subsection (9) separately covers termination based solely on a crime where the tenant or a lawful resident is the victim.

Q5. When must an automatic renewal notice be sent?
Under ATCP 134.09(3) and Wis. Stat. § 704.15, separate written notice at least 15 days but no more than 30 days before the stated effective date of the renewal or extension.

Q6. Can a landlord hold a tenant's property for unpaid rent?
Generally no. ATCP 134.09(4)(a) provides that except as allowed by Wis. Stat. §§ 704.05(5), 704.11 and 779.43, or by express agreement, a landlord has no right to a lien and is prohibited from seizing or holding a tenant's property.

Q7. Does ATCP 134.08 apply to oral tenancies?
Yes. ATCP 134.02(10) defines a rental agreement as an oral or written agreement in which the parties agree on the essential terms of the tenancy.

Q8. What can a tenant recover for a violation?
A person who suffers a monetary or pecuniary loss because of an ATCP 134 violation may recover twice the amount of the loss, together with costs and reasonable attorney's fees, subject to the requirements of Wis. Stat. § 100.20(5). Koble, 2026 WI 19, confirms the claimant must establish a pecuniary loss caused by the violation, and that rent paid in exchange for occupancy received is not itself such a loss.