Wisconsin Law Could Reshape Transparency In Real Estate

While I was knee-deep in real estate compliance work, I overlooked a significant legal development coming out of Wisconsin. Yes, Wisconsin — a long way from my home here in California, but increasingly a place worth paying attention to.

Digging into the statutory language, I began to wonder whether this is flying under everyone’s radar. If so, this may not just be an admission, but also a quiet case of breaking news.

So hang tight while I set up the cinematic parallel and share what I learned.

It’s not so hidden

If you’re familiar with the fantastic film The Big Short, also based on true events, you know it chronicled the lead-up to the 2007–2008 mortgage meltdown. One of the central figures was Michael Burry, a former medical doctor turned hedge fund manager who did something few others did: He read the underlying loan data.

What he found wasn’t hidden at all. It was right there in the documents — risky subprime mortgages, teaser rates poised to reset and assumptions baked into the system. And everyone seemed perfectly comfortable ignoring the fine and alarming print.

So what did Burry do? Something unthinkable at the time. He shorted the housing market by buying credit default swaps, effectively betting that the system would break. In other words, he bet against the gap — the space between what was on paper and what people actually understood. As we now know, that gap proved catastrophic.

Shorting the real estate transparency gap

Fast-forward to today’s real estate industry, and if you look just beyond the trees, a familiar shape begins to emerge. In certain corners of the business, the distance between proper disclosure and true comprehension is troubling.

Wisconsin just stepped directly into that space by shorting the transparency gap itself. This is the very place where “trust-me transparency” has long thrived, taking aim at listing contracts, digitally altered media and compensation arrangements.

Bridging the gap

What did Wisconsin do exactly? From this compliance professional’s vantage point, it did something refreshingly unambiguous: it codified transparency expectations directly into law. That law, 2025 Wisconsin Act 69 (formerly Assembly Bill 456), which takes effect January 1, 2027, starts by confronting the private listing network dilemma head-on.

First, listing agreements and the marketing of a seller’s property — an area the Wisconsin Realtors Association (WRA) has described as central to the legislation. As WRA has explained, the law steps directly into an existing tension between those who favor broad exposure to promote fairness and competition and those who emphasize a seller’s right to choose more limited marketing strategies.

Rather than relying on MLS rules, brokerage practices, or talk of “best practices,” Wisconsin embedded market-exposure decisions directly into statute.

Under the new law, public marketing is the default. A listed property must be marketed broadly online within one business day of the listing agreement unless the seller affirmatively opts out by completing and signing a disclosure and opt-out form prescribed by the Department, rather than by an MLS or brokerage.

Put differently, limited exposure will not happen quietly or informally; it requires a knowing, written decision by the seller at the outset of the listing relationship.

A power move

This is a power move, forcing the conversation about exposure to happen early, in writing, and deliberately. The law elevates market exposure from an internal marketing tactic to a consumer-facing right that must be knowingly exercised or waived.

Importantly, this is neither a ban on private listings nor a mandate to market every property broadly. The law preserves flexibility while prioritizing informed consent. Sellers may still choose limited marketing, but only after acknowledging, in writing, that doing so could reduce buyer awareness and competition and may affect price or other terms.

Moving past this bombshell, the legislation also steps into two other transparency pressure points. First, it requires disclosure when technology materially alters how a property is presented in marketing imagery.

Second, it reforms compensation arrangements by sharply limiting firm-to-firm payments (except for referral fees) and reinforcing that compensation may not be paid outside the client relationship without the informed, written consent of all parties.

If you are reading the writing on the wall, the fundamental thesis of this development is grounded in consumer choice. Disclosure must mean more than delivering a form; it must achieve actual comprehension.

Why this could ripple beyond Wisconsin

The timing of Wisconsin’s action is no accident.

Wisconsin’s approach specifically shifts the private-listing conversation out of MLS policy debates and into the listing contract itself. It also offers a regulatory blueprint that other states could easily adopt.

As I’ve been saying here, Wisconsin shorted the “trust-me transparency” gap. By making public market exposure the default and requiring affirmative, written seller consent to opt out, the law removes ambiguity, strengthens documentation, and gives regulators a clear enforcement standard.

At the same time, it reins in firm-to-firm compensation by pushing compensation conversations into the transaction itself, rather than allowing them to operate behind the scenes.

Where do we go from here?

Although Wisconsin is just one state, and its new law doesn’t resolve every debate over listings or brokerage compensation, it represents a meaningful step forward in consumer protection.

By opting out of reliance on “trust-me transparency,” Wisconsin made a purposeful choice. It opted into clearer expectations to reduce consumer confusion, improve public trust, and support licensees operating on the right side of the law.

This is a transparency-first law that moves beyond talking points and hardwires clarity directly into the rulebook.

This may be the most constructive “short” the industry has seen.

To think—I almost missed it.

The opinions and recommendations expressed in this article are based on Summer Goralik’s experience as a real estate compliance consultant and former investigator for the California Department of Real Estate. They are provided for informational purposes only and should not be construed as legal advice. Readers should consult with their brokerage and/or qualified legal counsel in their jurisdiction for guidance on specific situations.

This column does not necessarily reflect the opinion of HousingWire’s editorial department and its owners.

To contact the editor responsible for this piece: tracey@hwmedia.com