Wisconsin AI law and agency actions

Enacted statute · in force since 2024-03-23 · reviewed October 6, 2026

Political communication synthetic-media disclosures

Enacted

2024-03-21

Published

2024-03-22

Effective

2024-03-23

Initial applicability

2024-03-23

Covered audio/video communications are those otherwise described in §11.1303(2)(a) or (b): paid by a contribution/disbursement, or committee-paid/reimbursed/assumed-responsibility communications, but containing express advocacy, issue advocacy or referendum support/opposition. Synthetic media must be audio/video substantially produced wholly or partly by generative AI; deception is not an element.

Audio notice at both beginning and end: Contains content generated by AI. Video requires readable, legible, readily accessible writing throughout each synthetic segment, selecting: This video content generated by AI; This audio content generated by AI; or This content generated by AI, according to media type.

Intentional breach carries a forfeiture up to $1,000 for each violation notwithstanding §11.1401(1)(b). §11.1400(5) authorizes commission action or, on its probable-cause determination, the relevant district attorney, subject to the cross-referenced statutory exceptions.

Act §3 is an uncodified initial-applicability provision: first applies to a covered communication created on the effective date.

Issue advocacy means a communication providing information about political or social issues that is made to influence the outcome of an election, as defined in §11.1303(2m)(a)1.

Synthetic media is audio/video substantially produced in whole or part by generative AI. No general text-only AI disclosure duty is created.

Broadcaster/host/carrier has no liability unless it is the responsible committee; federal interactive-service rights/immunities preserved.

Disclosure does not excuse other civil/criminal liability. Commission may make limited exceptions by rule; no AI-specific implementing rule located in this bounded native-code search.

The (2)(f) small-item/social-media exemption is worded for subsection(2), not the additional AI subsection(2m); do not automatically import it as an AI-notice exemption without agency authority.

2023 Wisconsin Act 123 · §§2–3; pp.1–2; enactment/publication heading and §991.11 footer ↗ · Wis. Stat. §11.1303 · §11.1303(2m)(a)–(h), history ↗ · Ethics Commission candidate webinar · Act 123 · slide 59: Legislative Update — 2023 Act 123 ↗ · Wis. Stat. ch. 11 · §11.0101(5m), PDF p.2; §11.1303(2)(a)–(b), p.29; §11.1303(2m), p.30; §11.1400(5), p.32 ↗

Enacted statute · in force since 2024-03-29 · reviewed October 6, 2026

Virtual child pornography

Enacted

2024-03-27

Published

2024-03-28

Effective

2024-03-29

Creates §948.125 for knowing receipt, distribution, production, possession, or access with intent to view obscene material depicting a purported child engaged in sexually explicit conduct, with the statutory knowledge/reason-to-know elements.

A purported child may or may not be an actual child. The material must satisfy all statutory obscenity prongs, including lack of serious literary, artistic, political, educational or scientific value.

Class D felony generally; Class I if actor was under 18. Related amendments extend registration, licensing/placement restrictions, sentencing and surcharge provisions.

Not a blanket ban on every computer-generated image; all definition and knowledge requirements apply.

This statutory review does not evaluate constitutional enforceability or court developments.

2023 Wisconsin Act 224 · §22 creates §948.125; related §§1–21,23–25; p.1 date heading/§991.11 footer ↗ · Wis. Stat. §948.125 · §948.125(1)–(2), history ↗

Enacted statute · in force since 2025-10-04 · reviewed October 6, 2026

Synthetic intimate representations and nonconsensual reproductions

Enacted

2025-10-02

Published

2025-10-03

Effective

2025-10-04

Defines a realistic technological representation using an identifiable person’s distinguishing features to depict an intimate representation, irrespective of artificial, legally generated or generally accessible components.

Adds posting/publishing/distributing/exhibiting such representation with intent to coerce, harass or intimidate the identifiable person to §942.09(2)(am). Current penalty is Class I felony generally, elevated by §942.09(2)(dr) to Class H when the person depicted is under 18.

Adds knowingly nonconsensual reproduction of a private representation to §942.09(3m)(a). Current penalty is Class A misdemeanor generally, elevated by §942.09(3m)(am) to Class I when the person depicted is under 18.

Surrounding §942.09 exceptions remain relevant, including (2)(bm)–(dm) and (3m)(b). Mere technological alteration is not enough for the synthetic intimate representation offense without the specified intent and realistic/identifiable/intimate elements. The representation definition includes audio as well as visual material.

Do not use Governor’s Oct.3 announcement as the enactment date; the act states Oct.2.

2025 Wisconsin Act 34 · §§1–3; heading and §991.11 footer ↗ · Wis. Stat. §942.09 · §942.09(1)(e),(2)(am)4,(3m)(a)3; surrounding penalties and exceptions ↗ · Wis. Stat. ch. 942 · §942.09(2)(am),(dr),(3m)(a),(am), history; PDF pp.2–3 ↗ · 2015 Wisconsin Act 320 · §§3–6, p.1; enactment/publication heading ↗

Adopted regulation · in force since 2026-03-01 · reviewed October 6, 2026

Crisis urgent-care/observation facility AI policies

Filed with LRB

2026-01-21

Published

2026-02-23

Effective

2026-03-01

A facility must have written AI/telehealth/electronic-communication policies covering when use is allowed and by whom, client privacy and information security, and clients’ right to decline these services.

This sits within mandatory facility policies and certification requirements, not general advice.

§31.02 confines applicability to covered facilities. Under §51.036(2)(f), facilities already providing covered crisis-intervention services before March 31, 2024 may continue without the new statutory certification; §31.02(2) excludes them from chapter certification requirements.

The rule does not impose these duties on every Wisconsin hospital or every AI vendor.

DHS31.05 supplies a discretionary waiver/variance process with department approval and protection-of-health/safety criteria; applicability of an approved exception must be checked for the particular facility.

Wis. Admin. Code ch. DHS 31 · §§31.01–.02,31.06–.07; §31.07(14)(a)–(c) at PDF p.5 ↗ · CR 25-051 final order · Final order §2 creates ch.DHS31; §31.07(14); effective-date clause ↗ · CR 25-051 official history · Status: Final; filed/published/effective fields ↗ · Wis. Stat. §51.036 · §51.036(2)(f) ↗

Enacted statute · duty begins 2027-01-01 · reviewed October 6, 2026

Technology-enhanced real-estate advertising disclosure

Enacted

2025-12-09

Published

2025-12-10

Effective

2027-01-01

Disclosure duty begins

2027-01-01

Licensees must disclose in all advertising if technology, including AI, added, removed or changed property elements so as to create a false or misleading impression.

Existing §452.136(1) separately bars false/deceptive/misleading advertising.

The new §452.136(1m) duty starts January 1, 2027. Its appearance in current online statutes does not mean it is already operative.

The act does not prescribe exact notice wording or placement. The scope of (1m) is licensees’ advertising; the act’s one-to-four-unit rules elsewhere should not be imported as a limit into this subsection.

Related SS 028-26 rulemaking is a scope statement, not an adopted rule.

2025 Wisconsin Act 69 · §4 creates §452.136(1m); §9(1) effective-date clause; pp.1–2 ↗ · Wis. Stat. §452.136 · §452.136(1m) and explicit effective-date note ↗

Internal government policy · limited government scope · reviewed October 6, 2026

Enterprise acceptable technology use, access and security AI provisions

Effective

2025-03-10

Agency AI policies require DOA approval; use only agency-authorized AI platforms/functions for approved use cases or business purposes.

Do not share nonpublic information with unauthorized internal/external generative AI; verify output completeness/accuracy and use ethically/transparently with bias safeguards.

Generative outputs created or kept for state business are addressed as records; recording/transcription controls and retention obligations also apply.

All generative and predictive AI uses must follow human-in-the-loop principles; output must receive appropriate review before deployment for state work. Generative research requires independent accuracy checks, and users must not prompt generative tools/models to create content in others’ style. Unless using an agency-expressly-authorized AI tool for an expressly authorized purpose, users must not solely use predictive AI for decision-making without reviewing predictions/decisions/outputs and exercising critical judgment.

Expressly excludes DOJ, Military Affairs, Investment Board, UW Board of Regents and Technical College System Board.

Agency policies may be stricter; conflicting policies need DET exception and legal approval.

This is internal governance/procurement policy, not a generally applicable private-sector statute.

DET Acceptable Use Policy · March 10, 2025 · pp.3–5 scope; pp.10–14 records/transcription; pp.21–23 AI usage ↗ · DET enterprise policy index · AUP listed last revised March10,2025 ↗

Executive organizational direction · task force work concluded · reviewed October 6, 2026

Governor’s Task Force on Workforce and Artificial Intelligence

Issued

2023-08-23

Task force work concluded

2024-07

Creates task force to gather/analyze AI workforce impacts and produce advisory action plan recommending policy directions.

Creates no general private-employer AI duty. DWD states task force concluded and published plan July 2024; no repeal inferred from completion.

Executive Order 211 · operative paragraphs1–3; signature date ↗ · DWD workforce and AI task force · Task Force Charge / Action Plan and Public Input; web retrieval ↗

Internal government policy · limited government scope · reviewed October 6, 2026

Arts Board panelist restriction on AI uploads

Panelists may not upload application materials into AI models/tools during or after review; page also restricts sharing/distributing application materials.

Applies to grant-review panelists, not all arts applicants or businesses. Effective/adoption date not displayed.

Wisconsin Arts Board advisory panelist policy · Restrictions on Artificial Intelligence (AI) Usage ↗

Internal government policy · limited government scope · reviewed October 6, 2026

DET prohibition on DeepSeek in state IT systems

Handbook effective date

2025-06-19

Prohibited-products list as of

2025-07-28

Cover and index revision date

2026-03-10

Version-table revision date

2026-03-30

First DeepSeek prohibition date

Not established

Standard 290 prohibits listed products from being implemented on or connected to state networks or installed on state-issued devices; the list as of July 28, 2025 includes all DeepSeek versions and Hangzhou DeepSeek Artificial Intelligence Co. LTD.

DET monitors adherence and assists removal, installation prevention, network restrictions and security-awareness measures.

Use Standard 290’s own statutory-authorization scope and Regents exclusion; do not import the AUP’s five-entity exclusions. Nonexecutive agencies are encouraged rather than commanded to adopt it.

This is an internal security restriction, not a statewide prohibition on private DeepSeek use.

The first DeepSeek prohibition date is not established. Handbook cover effective date and list-as-of date are distinct; cover/index revision March 10, 2026 conflicts with version-history March 30, 2026.

DET IT Security Standards Handbook · Standard 290 · PDF pp.82–83 Standard 290; p.1 cover; p.108 version history ↗ · DET enterprise policy index · Current handbook link and March 10, 2026 label ↗

Nonbinding agency guidance · reviewed October 6, 2026

The Use of Artificial Intelligence Systems in Insurance

Issued

2025-03-18

OCI expects a proportionate written AIS program covering governance, risk management, internal controls, lifecycle monitoring, testing and third-party diligence.

It describes examination requests, model/documentation inventories and consumer-notice expectations.

OCI expressly connects AI-supported decisions to existing insurance duties on unfair practices, claims, governance disclosures, nondiscriminatory rates and examinations.

Bulletin is not an enacted AI statute or a separately adopted regulation. It expressly allows alternative compliant practices and does not prescribe specific practices or documentation.

No separate implementation deadline stated. Do not convert should/expected into a new statutory mandate.

OCI AI bulletin · March 18, 2025 · §1 legislative authority; §3 AIS program §§1.1–4.3; §4 concluding paragraphs ↗ · OCI bulletin index · 2025 issued bulletins entry; index last updated April20,2026 ↗

Nonbinding agency guidance · reviewed October 6, 2026

Procurement conference explanation of agency AI approvals

Document label

2025 Statewide Procurement Conference

Slides explain agencies need AI policy and DOA-approved use case before implementing AI; current uses also need approved use cases.

Presentation is supporting implementation guidance, not independent rulemaking or a newly enacted procurement law. Exact presentation date unresolved; labeled 2025 conference.

DOA 2025 procurement conference slides · slide29: Artificial Intelligence (AI) ↗

Nonbinding agency guidance · reviewed October 6, 2026

Workforce and AI advisory action plan

Document date

2024-07-08

Publication month

2024-07

Recommends workforce education, equitable access, worker input and responsible deployment principles.

Proposed policies are recommendations, not existing employer obligations. Do not treat budget recommendations as enacted appropriations without tracing final budget text.

DWD workforce and AI action plan · July 2024 · Executive Summary, July8,2024; web retrieval ↗ · DWD workforce and AI task force · July2024 publication and conclusion statement ↗

Nonbinding agency guidance · reviewed October 6, 2026

Investment adviser use of ChatGPT carries risk

Issue label

Spring2026

Issued

Not established

Warns about AI-generated compliance documents, inaccurate content/privacy/IP/cyber risks; says advisers should disclose AI use in their investment process in ADV Part2A brochure.

Newsletter language is should; no new AI-specific statute, promulgated rule or separate compliance date identified.

DFI investment adviser newsletter · Spring 2026 · PDF p.8: Adviser Use of ChatGPT Carries Risk ↗ · DFI investment adviser newsletter index · Spring2026 entry ↗

Nonbinding agency guidance · reviewed October 6, 2026

Artificial Intelligence and Consumer Protection

Explains voice cloning, synthetic imagery and AI-assisted impersonation/phishing risks and recommends independent verification.

Consumer fact sheet creates no new business compliance duty. Publication date not displayed in captured page.

DATCP AI consumer protection guidance · How are scammers using AI?; How do I know what is created by AI? ↗

Nonbinding agency guidance · reviewed October 6, 2026

Use of AI in consumer complaints

Review AI-assisted submissions for inaccurate facts and inapplicable legal references; incomplete/inaccurate submissions can delay review.

Not a prohibition on AI assistance or a newly enacted sanction.

DFI consumer complaint guidance · Use of Artificial Intelligence (AI) ↗

Nonbinding agency guidance · reviewed October 6, 2026

Empowering Lifelong Learning AI guidance version 1.1

Document month

2024-12

Version

1.1

Hub update label

2025

December 2024 version 1.1 expands the earlier education guidance with professional-development, social-emotional-learning, district-example and data-privacy material.

The official hub describes this link as last updated2025, but the document cover and version table state December 2024 version 1.1. Document metadata modified August 25, 2026 is not treated as a substantive issue date.

The endpoint serves DOCX despite the hub’s PDF-target presentation. No separate legally binding effective date is established.

DPI AI guidance · December 2024 version 1.1 (DOCX) · Cover; Version History table; Ethics and Data Policy section ↗ · DPI AI guidance hub · Foundational Resources, AI Guidance for Wisconsin Schools link ↗

Nonbinding agency guidance · reviewed October 6, 2026

Current DPI AI guidance hub and school policy templates

Policy page updated

2026-09

Administrator page updated

2026-09

Risk page updated

2026-09

Provides AI-readiness, procurement, transparency, data-governance, privacy, human-review and equity recommendations and suggested local policy clauses.

Current risk guidance cautions against sole reliance on AI for grading, discipline, placement, eligibility and other consequential student decisions.

These are recommendations and templates for local review, not newly enacted statewide duties. Example 90-day implementation steps and72-hour breach notices are not statutory compliance deadlines.

The readiness toolkit is marked coming soon; its linked endpoint returned403. No toolkit content or availability is claimed.

DPI links §§43.30 and 134.98 as underlying law; each applies only within its own statutory scope.

DPI AI guidance hub · Agency role, current role-based links and foundational resource labels ↗ · DPI policy and governance guidance · Policy and Governance; Sample Language; Wisconsin Statutes; footer ↗ · DPI administrator guidance · Strategic AI Implementation; footer ↗ · DPI AI risk guidance · Human Judgment, Transparency & High-Stakes Decisions; footer ↗

Project-specific methodology · informational · reviewed October 6, 2026

DNR disclosure of AI-assisted invasive-species economic analysis

Document month

2026-04

Separate approval-process start

Not established

Documents prompt/response retention, checking source websites, rejecting mismatched data, public-source data use, and independent checking/testing of AI code suggestions.

States this project’s AI use began before implementation of the department’s AI-tool approval process.

Appendix I is retrospective project documentation. It is not a promulgated AI rule or proof these practices are binding statewide or department-wide requirements.

The separate DNR approval process is acknowledged but its text, exact implementation date and permitted use cases are not disclosed in this appendix.

CR 26-037 remains proposed; the guide’s April 2026 date is not an adoption or effective date.

DNR April 2026 NR 40 rule revision guide · Cover p.1; AI-methodology pointer p.58; Appendix I pp.220–221 ↗ · CR 26-037 official status · Active status; July 16, 2026 report to agency ↗

Adopted adjacent rule · AI or machine learning not established · reviewed October 6, 2026

Automated pharmacy product verification

Effective

2021-01-01

Automated verification technology must be in a licensed pharmacy and use barcodes or other machine-readable technology; validate on at least 2,500 checks with at least 99.8% accuracy and 100% pharmacist audit.

Revalidate if the software is upgraded, or if a component responsible for verification accuracy/correctness is replaced or serviced outside the manufacturer’s standard maintenance recommendations. Eligible products require manufacturer packaging or pharmacist-ensured correctly labeled repackaging, pharmacist drug-utilization review before delivery, and administration by an authorized individual at the institution.

Maintain policies, procedures, and training materials and make them available to the board on request. Separately retain the five categories of records specified by (5)(a) for five years and make them available on request.

This is regulated automation, not proof that the system uses machine learning or generative AI. Preserve this scope label rather than call it an AI-specific law.

Wis. Admin. Code ch. Phar 7 · §Phar7.55(1)–(5), PDF pp.9–10; history ↗ · CR 19-145 official history · Promulgation history ↗

Adopted adjacent rule · AI or machine learning not established · reviewed October 6, 2026

Foster-care standardized assessment and algorithmic level-of-need scoring

Original permanent rule effective

2011-09-01

Latest relevant amendment effective

2025-12-01

Use the department-prescribed standardized tool to assess the child’s needs and strengths and the foster parent’s needs; use the resulting information for level-of-need, placement, service, and supplemental-payment decisions.

Assess each child before placement or within 30 days afterward; assess each foster parent within 30 days after placement. Reassess the child and foster parent within six months of the child’s last assessment or reassessment and re-evaluate placement, services, and supplemental payments. Placement above the home’s care level requires a documented exception and supports under (7)(b); preserve the Level 5 limitation in (7)(c).

The rule defines an algorithm as composite scoring. It does not establish that assessment is fully automated or AI-based.

DCF 56.22 does not apply to the specified domestic-infant or foreign-child adoption-only placements in (1)(b). DCF 56.25(12) exempts relative/like-kin placements only from DCF 56.22(6), the matching provision, and does not itself exempt them from assessment or reassessment. DCF 56.23(1)(c) bars supplemental/exceptional payments and the initial clothing allowance for Level 1 homes.

Wis. Admin. Code ch. DCF 56 · §56.03(1g),(21r); §§56.22–.23, PDF pp.22–24; §56.25(12) ↗ · CR 25-043 official history · Amendment promulgation history ↗

General-law crosswalk · provision-specific scope and limits · reviewed October 6, 2026

Existing insurance law explicitly connected to AI by OCI

Agency AI linkage published

2025-03-18

Apply unfair-marketing/unfair-discrimination prohibitions and claims-settlement standards to AI-assisted insurance conduct.

Apply corporate-governance disclosures to AI governance and rate standards to AI-generated rates/rating plans; OCI examinations can inspect AI-related records.

Crosswalk is based on OCI’s explicit linkage, not an assertion every cited provision newly regulates AI.

Each underlying law’s scope/exemptions govern. General insurer governance annual disclosure is due June 1 under §610.80(2)(a), distinct from the AI bulletin’s issuance.

Corporate-governance annual disclosure is an information-reporting obligation; §610.80(6) expressly says it does not prescribe corporate-governance standards or procedures. Chapter 625’s line-of-insurance exclusions in §625.03 and exemptions under §625.04 remain applicable.

Chapter 601 examination authority is linked by OCI’s bulletin; a separate complete primary-text review of that chapter was not completed. The original dates of the underlying provisions are not all traced.

OCI AI bulletin · March 18, 2025 · §1 Legislative Authority ↗ · Wis. Stat. ch. 628 · §628.34 ↗ · Wis. Admin. Code ch. Ins 6 · §Ins6.11 ↗ · Wis. Stat. §610.80 · §610.80 ↗ · Wis. Admin. Code ch. Ins 53 · ch.Ins53 ↗ · Wis. Stat. ch. 625 · ch.625, especially §625.11 ↗

General-law crosswalk · provision-specific scope and limits · reviewed October 6, 2026

Breach notification for covered biometric personal information

Enacted

2006-03-16

Published

2006-03-30

Original provision effective

2006-03-31

§134.98 includes name-linked unique biometric data such as fingerprint, voiceprint, retina/iris image or other unique physical representation when nonpublic and readable.

Subject to statutory triggers and exceptions, make required individual-notice efforts within a reasonable time, no later than 45 days after learning of the unauthorized acquisition. If a single incident requires notice to 1,000 or more individuals, notify nationwide consumer-reporting agencies without unreasonable delay of timing, distribution, and content of the notices.

A nonowner/nonlicensee storer lacking a contract with the owner/licensee must notify the owner/licensee as soon as practicable under §134.98(2)(bm).

This is not a general biometric-consent regime. Preserve the precise material-risk/good-faith conditions, compliance-conditioned GLBA/HIPAA exemptions under (3m), and law-enforcement notification hold under (5). DPI’s 72-hour sample policy is not the statutory §134.98 deadline.

AI use case is storing biometrics for automated identity/authentication systems; applicability follows data/triggers, not AI label.

§134.98(7m) depends on publication of a JCRAR determination in the Register. No qualifying notice was found in documented exact-citation/phrase searches; broad exploratory results and indexing completeness are not exhausted. Continued codification is not conclusive proof the conditional sunset never triggered.

Wis. Stat. §134.98 · §134.98(1)(b)5,(2)–(3m),(5)–(7m), history ↗ · DPI policy and governance guidance · Legal and Data Privacy Considerations → Wisconsin Statutes; agency linkage only. ↗ · 2005 Wisconsin Act 138 · p.1 heading, §1 and §991.11 footnote; entire Act reviewed for special effective clause ↗ · 2007 Wisconsin Act 97 §238 · §238 renumbers §895.507 to §134.98 ↗ · Register exact-citation search · §134.98 · Bounded exact-citation search ↗

General-law crosswalk · provision-specific scope and limits · reviewed October 6, 2026

Electronic agents and automated transactions

Enacted

2004-04-20

Published

2004-05-04

Original provision effective

2004-05-05

Initial applicability

2004-05-05

Recognizes contract formation through electronic agents even without individual review/awareness; governs agent–individual interactions and certain error-avoidance conditions.

Not AI-specific and not a general AI safety statute. Applies only within ch.137 scope and agreements to transact electronically.

Agentic contracting use case is directly described by statutory electronic-agent/automated-transaction definitions; no claim every chatbot interaction forms a contract.

Wis. Stat. ch. 137 · §§137.11(2),(6),137.12–.13,137.18(1)(b),137.22 ↗ · 2003 Wisconsin Act 294 · p.1 heading and §991.11; §13 pp.2–6; §22m(1) p.7 ↗ · Wis. Stat. §137.20 · §137.20(6)(a), May5,2004 ↗

Historical emergency rule · superseded March 1, 2026 · reviewed October 6, 2026

Emergency predecessor to DHS31 AI-policy duty

Filed with LRB

2025-06-10

Published

2025-06-16

Effective

2025-06-16

Original scheduled expiration

2025-11-12

Extended scheduled expiration

2026-03-12

Superseded by permanent rule

2026-03-01

Emergency rule first introduced the facility AI-policy requirements later adopted permanently.

Historical only; do not double count as an additional current duty.

EmR2507 official history · Status: Expired or Superseded by CR25-051; date fields ↗ · EmR2507 emergency text · §31.07(14) in emergency rule ↗

Nonbinding guidance · historical June 2024 version 1.0 · reviewed October 6, 2026

Empowering Lifelong Learning: AI Guidance for Enhancing K–12 and Library Education

Document month

2024-06

Version

1.0

Advises human-centered adoption, district AI policies, ethical/data-privacy practices, engagement, training and evaluation.

June2024 version1.0 is historical; the currently linked document’s version history identifies December2024 version1.1. Separate live DPI web guidance pages were updated September2026.

Recommendations are nonbinding and are not themselves a statewide regulation or adopted district policy.

DPI AI guidance · June 2024 version 1.0 · printed pp.1,4,7–8,14–15 (PDF pp.5,8,11–12,18–19) ↗

Respondent-specific administrative order · index issuance 2020-10-21 · reviewed October 6, 2026

Mind Capital / Gonzalo Garcia-Pelayo / Oscar Garcia-Pelayo

Index issuance

2020-10-21

AI/algorithmic arbitrage investment claims

Cease-and-desist/registration-exemption restrictions under ch.551, as stated in the order; not a generally applicable AI regulation.

No monetary restitution, penalty, or costs order in the reviewed original order.

Original order contains service affidavits for the named individuals and conditional no-hearing finality mechanics. Later hearing/disposition evidence is not established. Walker’s separate consent order does not resolve Mind Capital respondent finality.

DFI order · Mind Capital / Gonzalo Garcia-Pelayo / Oscar Garcia-Pelayo · PDF p.2 §II.A ¶¶8,12; pp.5–6 §III.A; p.7 §III.C(k),(m); service affidavits pp.9–12 ↗ · DFI administrative order index ↗

Respondent-specific administrative order · index issuance 2020-11-30 · reviewed October 6, 2026

Gerald Walker (Mind Capital solicitation)

Index issuance

2020-11-30

AI arbitrage investment solicitation

Cease-and-desist/registration-exemption restrictions under ch.551, as stated in the order; not a generally applicable AI regulation.

No independently verified monetary award reported in this inventory.

Current agency index searched for same respondent/source; no court sources reviewed. Confirm service/hearing/final-order developments before relying on ongoing restrictions.

DFI order · Gerald Walker (Mind Capital solicitation) · §II.A¶¶9,13; §III; consent/waiver ↗ · DFI administrative order index ↗

Respondent-specific administrative order · index issuance 2021-05-26 · reviewed October 6, 2026

John L. Adkins (EndoTech / DAISY solicitation)

Index issuance

2021-05-26

DAISY AI/cryptocurrency investment solicitation

Cease-and-desist/registration-exemption restrictions under ch.551, as stated in the order; not a generally applicable AI regulation.

No monetary restitution, penalty, or costs relief in the reviewed consent order.

Executed consent/waiver is appended and the order was effective upon issuance May 26, 2021. A May 26 service affidavit is included. Later modification or rescission is not established; this is not a summary order awaiting a no-hearing inference.

DFI order · John L. Adkins (EndoTech / DAISY solicitation) · PDF p.2 §II.A ¶¶4–7; p.3 ¶¶21–23; pp.4–5 §III.A,C; pp.6–8 execution, waiver and service ↗ · DFI administrative order index ↗

Respondent-specific administrative order · index issuance 2025-05-07 · reviewed October 6, 2026

Ascendancy Investment Education Foundation / Coinbearer Inc. / Bitcoinbears.com

Index issuance

2025-05-07

Signed/executed

2025-05-06

FINQbot expressly marketed as an Intelligent AI System for personalized investment advice, automated trading and market analysis.

Cease-and-desist/registration-exemption restrictions under ch.551, as stated in the order; not a generally applicable AI regulation.

Proposed restitution $64,600 plus legal-rate interest, proposed joint-and-several civil assessment $64,600, and proposed actual costs; no later final imposition established.

Reviewed original 11-page order and same-case agency index entry. No actual service/hearing outcome or later final administrative order establishes proposed monetary finality.

Index labels issuance May 7, 2025; signed/executed order states May 6, 2025. Preserve separate dates; do not infer an error or select one as the other event.

DFI order · Ascendancy Investment Education Foundation / Coinbearer Inc. / Bitcoinbears.com · PDF p.2 §II.A ¶¶4–5; p.3 ¶7 screenshot; pp.8–9 §III.A; p.9 §III.B(g)–(j); p.11 §III.D(o),(q) ↗ · DFI administrative order index ↗

Respondent-specific administrative order · index issuance 2025-09-04 · reviewed October 6, 2026

BKTrade / BKTrader

Index issuance

2025-09-04

Signed/executed

2025-09-03

AI trading bots marketed with guaranteed returns

Cease-and-desist/registration-exemption restrictions under ch.551, as stated in the order; not a generally applicable AI regulation.

Proposed restitution $262,301.57 plus legal-rate interest and actual costs; no separate specified civil assessment in §III.B. Final imposition not established.

Current agency index searched for same respondent/source; no court sources reviewed. Confirm service/hearing/final-order developments before relying on ongoing restrictions.

Index lists issuance September 4; signed order states September 3. Appended administrator-service affidavit is dated September 4. Preserve these distinct event dates; respondent-service/no-hearing finality remains unestablished.

DFI order · BKTrade / BKTrader · PDF p.1 §II.A ¶¶1,3; pp.5–6 §III.A; p.6 §III.B(g)–(i); pp.7–8 §III.D(n),(p); image-only affidavit p.9 ↗ · DFI administrative order index ↗

Respondent-specific administrative order · index issuance 2025-10-07 · reviewed October 6, 2026

CoinBFT.com / Jade Gong

Index issuance

2025-10-07

Purported AI-powered investment platform advertising Intelligent AI Arbitration for passive returns; claimed Coinbase Pro affiliation is not verified.

Cease-and-desist/registration-exemption restrictions under ch.551, as stated in the order; not a generally applicable AI regulation.

Proposed restitution $14,644 plus legal-rate interest and actual costs; no separate specified civil assessment in the reviewed source. Later final imposition not established.

Current agency index searched for same respondent/source; no court sources reviewed. Confirm service/hearing/final-order developments before relying on ongoing restrictions.

DFI order · CoinBFT.com / Jade Gong · PDF p.1 §II.A ¶1; p.2 ¶9; p.3 ¶16; pp.5–6 §III.A; p.6 §III.B(g)–(i); p.7 §III.D(n),(p) ↗ · DFI administrative order index ↗

Respondent-specific administrative order · index issuance 2025-10-14 · reviewed October 6, 2026

CMECRYPTO.NNVM.MY / Mika Karina

Index issuance

2025-10-14

Purported AI/data-based investment analytics

Cease-and-desist/registration-exemption restrictions under ch.551, as stated in the order; not a generally applicable AI regulation.

Proposed restitution $97,226.12 plus legal-rate interest and actual costs; no separate specified civil assessment in the reviewed source. Later final imposition not established.

Current agency index searched for same respondent/source; no court sources reviewed. Confirm service/hearing/final-order developments before relying on ongoing restrictions.

DFI order · CMECRYPTO.NNVM.MY / Mika Karina · PDF p.2 §II.A ¶6; p.3 ¶17; pp.5–6 §III.A; pp.6–7 §III.B(g)–(i); pp.7–8 §III.D(n),(p); administrator-service affidavit p.9 ↗ · DFI administrative order index ↗

Respondent-specific administrative order · index issuance 2025-12-18 · reviewed October 6, 2026

SCA Community / TitanXExchange / Evander Ellis / Katherine Monroe

Index issuance

2025-12-18

AlgoFusion personalized AI investment advice and claimed AI algorithm trading

Cease-and-desist/registration-exemption restrictions under ch.551, as stated in the order; not a generally applicable AI regulation.

Separately proposed relief appears in this order; final imposition not established merely by passage of time.

Current agency index searched for same respondent/source; no court sources reviewed. Confirm service/hearing/final-order developments before relying on ongoing restrictions.

DFI order · SCA Community / TitanXExchange / Evander Ellis / Katherine Monroe · §II.A¶¶5–7,13; §III.A and B ↗ · DFI administrative order index ↗

Respondent-specific administrative order · index issuance 2026-02-26 · reviewed October 6, 2026

Watsans Exchange / Sabrina Marlow

Index issuance

2026-02-26

Purported AI trading and AI algorithms (PDF pp.1–2 §II.A ¶¶1,3–4); reverse-image-search results associated with the Marlow image appeared AI-generated or manipulated (p.3 ¶16), a qualified observation.

Respondent-specific securities enforcement under Wis. Stat. ch. 551. Section III.A orders cessation of securities offers/sales in or from Wisconsin unless covered or registered, revokes registration exemptions, and prohibits further violations of the specified securities provisions. The order says its summary relief takes effect on issuance; this is not a generally applicable AI statute, administrative rule, or standalone AI regulatory standard.

Proposed, jointly and severally: $17,000 restitution plus referenced legal-rate interest; $17,000 civil penalty; actual costs not quantified. Final imposition not established.

PDF pp.11–12 include affidavits dated February 26, 2026; no-hearing and later-disposition conditions remain unverified.

DFI order · Watsans Exchange / Sabrina Marlow · PDF pp.1–2 §II.A ¶¶1,3–4; p.3 ¶16; pp.7–8 §III.A(a)–(f); p.8 §III.B(g)–(j); pp.9–10 §III.D(o),(q). ↗ · DFI administrative order index ↗

Respondent-specific administrative order · index issuance 2026-04-14 · reviewed October 6, 2026

ElonMuskQuantumAI / Christopher Robert

Index issuance

2026-04-14

Purported Quantum AI bots and AI trading platform; the Wisconsin order expressly finds false bot-use and Elon Musk affiliation representations (pp.5,8–9).

Respondent-specific securities enforcement under Wis. Stat. ch. 551. Section III.A orders cessation of securities offers/sales in or from Wisconsin unless covered or registered, revokes registration exemptions, and prohibits further violations of the specified securities provisions. The order says its summary relief takes effect on issuance; this is not a generally applicable AI statute, administrative rule, or standalone AI regulatory standard.

No operative monetary assessment or proposed monetary relief found in this order; generic finality language is not an award.

PDF pp.13–14 contain service affidavits dated April 16, 2026. Hearing/no-hearing and later disposition remain unverified.

DFI order · ElonMuskQuantumAI / Christopher Robert · PDF p.2 §II.A ¶4; p.5 ¶¶22–23; pp.5–6 ¶26; pp.8–9 §II.B ¶¶22–26; p.10 §III.A(a)–(f); pp.11–12 §III.C(k),(m). ↗ · DFI administrative order index ↗

Respondent-specific administrative order · index issuance 2026-05-11 · reviewed October 6, 2026

Freckie Capital LLC / James Alexander

Index issuance

2026-05-11

Explicit AI-related investment representations/expectations: investor understood AI stock trading and expected AI-driven stock/crypto returns based on website and Alexander representations; proprietary NAT/algorithmic claims are supporting context.

Respondent-specific securities enforcement under Wis. Stat. ch. 551. Section III.A orders cessation of securities offers/sales in or from Wisconsin unless covered or registered, revokes registration exemptions, and prohibits further violations of the specified securities provisions. The order says its summary relief takes effect on issuance; this is not a generally applicable AI statute, administrative rule, or standalone AI regulatory standard.

Operative body proposes joint-and-several $30,000 restitution plus interest, $30,000 penalty, and unquantified actual costs; final imposition not established.

PDF p.13 contains an Alexander service affidavit dated May 21, 2026. Freckie-specific service and no-hearing/later disposition are not established by this review.

Caption says imposing restitution/civil penalties; PDF p.10 §III.B(g)–(j) expressly proposes relief. Preserve monetary relief as proposed unless service/no-hearing finality or a later final order is independently established.

DFI order · Freckie Capital LLC / James Alexander · PDF pp.1–2 §II.A ¶¶3–5; pp.3–4 ¶¶17–18; p.5 ¶32; pp.9–10 §III.A(a)–(f); p.10 §III.B(g)–(j); pp.11–12 §III.D(o),(q). ↗ · DFI administrative order index ↗

Respondent-specific administrative order · index issuance 2026-06-26 · reviewed October 6, 2026

BG Wealth Sharing / DSJ Exchange / HQI Exchange

Index issuance

2026-06-26

Wisconsin finds a fictitious Professor Stephen Beard persona likely generated by AI (p.8 ¶35), incorporated in violations (p.11 ¶¶61–65); separately recites Alberta’s alert concerning claimed AI-generated trading signals (p.7 ¶31).

Respondent-specific securities enforcement under Wis. Stat. ch. 551. Section III.A orders cessation of securities offers/sales in or from Wisconsin unless covered or registered, revokes registration exemptions, and prohibits further violations of the specified securities provisions. The order says its summary relief takes effect on issuance; this is not a generally applicable AI statute, administrative rule, or standalone AI regulatory standard.

Operative body proposes joint-and-several restitution of $3,240 for RD and $1,000 for JW ($4,240 total) plus referenced legal-rate interest, a $50,000 civil penalty, and unquantified actual costs. Caption says imposing, but final imposition is not established.

PDF pp.147–148 contain BG/DSJ service affidavits dated June 30, 2026; HQI-specific service and no-hearing/later disposition remain unverified.

Caption says imposing restitution/civil penalties; §III.B(g)–(j) expressly proposes them. $4,240 total restitution plus interest, $50,000 penalty, and actual costs are not verified as finally imposed.

DFI order · BG Wealth Sharing / DSJ Exchange / HQI Exchange · PDF p.7 §II.A ¶31 (Alberta bullet); p.8 ¶35 (third bullet); p.11 §II.B ¶¶61–65; pp.11–12 §III.A(a)–(f); pp.12–13 §III.B(g)–(j); p.14 §III.D(o),(q). ↗ · DFI administrative order index ↗

Respondent-specific administrative order · index issuance 2026-07-01 · reviewed October 6, 2026

Sertexity Labs Inc.

Index issuance

2026-07-01

Purported AI engine in website screenshot (p.2 ¶5, step 03); likely AI-generated company headshots (p.4 ¶16); proprietary algorithms and automated micro-arbitrage claims provide additional context (p.3 ¶6).

Respondent-specific securities enforcement under Wis. Stat. ch. 551. Section III.A orders cessation of securities offers/sales in or from Wisconsin unless covered or registered, revokes registration exemptions, and prohibits further violations of the specified securities provisions. The order says its summary relief takes effect on issuance; this is not a generally applicable AI statute, administrative rule, or standalone AI regulatory standard. Section III.A(f) also requires disclosure of the order and its terms in all offering documents provided in an offering pursuant to §§551.201 or 551.202.

No operative monetary assessment or proposed-money section found; generic finality notice does not impose money relief.

PDF p.10 contains a service affidavit dated July 2, 2026. No-hearing and later disposition remain unverified.

DFI order · Sertexity Labs Inc. · PDF p.2 §II.A ¶5 screenshot step 03; p.3 ¶6; p.4 ¶16; p.7 §III.A(a)–(g); pp.8–9 §III.C(l),(n). ↗ · DFI administrative order index ↗

Respondent-specific administrative order · index issuance 2025-12-18 · reviewed October 6, 2026

Global-Assets, Inc. / Natasha Berkowitz

Index issuance

2025-12-18

Signed/executed

2025-12-18

Purported AI-based digital-gold market analysis, AI Arbitrage and AI robots investment programs; not limited to a management title.

Respondent-specific cease-and-desist, revocation of registration exemptions, securities-law prohibitions and disclosure of the order and its terms in all offering documents for securities offerings pursuant to §§551.201 or 551.202; summary relief is effective upon issuance. Not a generally applicable AI regulation.

Proposed joint-and-several restitution $526,188.34 plus legal-rate interest, proposed joint-and-several civil assessment $526,188.34, and proposed actual investigation/proceeding costs; later final imposition not established.

Separately proposed, not verified final: prohibit respondents and the related persons/entities described in the operative paragraph from becoming registered under chapter 551 or its successor before satisfying the specified civil liabilities. PDF p.9, §III.B(k).

Original PDF includes service affidavits pp.12–16 and 30-day-after-service no-hearing mechanics. No later hearing outcome or final administrative disposition established by the original order or bounded index check.

DFI order · Global-Assets, Inc. / Natasha Berkowitz · PDF p.2 §II.A ¶¶7–8; pp.3–4 ¶13; p.4 ¶19; pp.7–8 §III.A; p.9 §III.B(h)–(k); pp.10–11 §III.D(p),(r) ↗ · DFI administrative order index ↗

Respondent-specific administrative order · index issuance 2026-06-02 · reviewed October 6, 2026

Quanxer Ltd. / HLGEX Ltd. / Sarah Mitchell / Liew Wei Ken

Index issuance

2026-06-02

Signed/executed

2026-06-02

HLGEX advertised AI-driven digital-asset trading infrastructure and an AI-first approach using modular, explainable, verifiable intelligent models. DFI found that Quanxer, HLGEX and Mitchell claimed a fictitious AI-driven trading platform; the conclusions connect those representations to securities and investment-adviser fraud, with Liew Wei Ken materially aiding the conduct.

Respondent-specific ch.551 summary relief effective upon issuance on June 2, 2026: cease offers/sales in or from Wisconsin unless securities are covered or registered; revoke registration exemptions; prohibit violations of §§551.501, 551.502 and ch.551. Applies to respondents and the related persons/entities described in §III.A(a)–(e). Not a generally applicable AI regulation.

Proposed, not independently verified final: $35,795.04 restitution plus §138.04 legal-rate interest from each transaction to satisfaction and a $35,795.04 civil penalty, each jointly and severally against Quanxer, HLGEX and Mitchell (§III.B(g)–(h), pp.11–12). Actual investigation/proceeding costs against RESPONDENTS are separately proposed without a dollar figure (§III.B(i), p.12). Do not allocate the two specified dollar amounts to Liew Wei Ken or multiply joint-and-several amounts by the three named respondents.

Separately proposed, not verified final: prohibit respondents and the related persons/entities described in the operative paragraph from becoming registered under chapter 551 or its successor before satisfying the specified civil liabilities. PDF p.12, §III.B(j).

The cached DFI index contains one matching row by exact case or listed respondent names, the June 2, 2026 Summary Order. Five appended affidavits attest to June 4, 2026 service, but the cached order/index do not establish whether any respondent requested a hearing or the Administrator ordered one within the service-based period. No later final order, amendment, rescission or verified no-hearing certification is established by this bounded review.

Caption says imposing restitution and civil penalties; operative §III.B(g)–(j) expressly proposes that relief. Preserve proposed status unless finality is independently established.

DFI order · Quanxer Ltd. / HLGEX Ltd. / Sarah Mitchell / Liew Wei Ken · PDF p.2, §II.A¶7; pp.4–5, §II.A¶10 (AI-first language on p.4); p.6, §II.A¶25; pp.9–10, §II.B¶¶52–57; pp.10–13, §III.A–D ↗ · DFI administrative order index ↗