Are Online Waivers Legal in Wisconsin?

This guide is for Wisconsin owners of ski hills, fitness centers, pools, trampoline parks, stables, farms, tours and other activity businesses. Wisconsin reads liability waivers more strictly than most states, but a carefully written release has been enforced, and a signed agreement does other useful work too. We cover the e-signature rules, the Wisconsin Supreme Court cases that struck waivers down, the newer appellate decisions that enforced one, and what a signed form does for you.

This guide is general information about Wisconsin law, with links to the statutes and cases, so you and your attorney can look into anything that applies to your business.

Waiver Law in Wisconsin at a Glance

Are Electronic Signatures Legal in Wisconsin?

Yes. Wisconsin adopted the Uniform Electronic Transactions Act in Chapter 137 of its statutes (2003 Wis. Act 294). Section 137.15 says a record or signature "may not be denied legal effect or enforceability solely because it is in electronic form," and that if a law requires a signature, "an electronic signature satisfies that requirement in that law." The federal ESIGN Act (15 U.S.C. 7001) also applies. A waiver signed on a phone, computer or tablet counts as signed. The hard part in Wisconsin is the content.

Are Liability Waivers Enforceable in Wisconsin?

Only with care. "Wisconsin case law does not favor exculpatory agreements," and a waiver "must be construed strictly against the party seeking to rely on it," the Wisconsin Supreme Court said in Atkins v. Swimwest Family Fitness Center, 2005 WI 4, 277 Wis. 2d 303, 691 N.W.2d 334. The court has also said it "has not held that an exculpatory clause is invalid per se." In practice, its leading cases have all gone against the business:

• Richards v. Richards, 181 Wis. 2d 1007, 513 N.W.2d 118 (1994). Void because the form served two purposes that were not clearly distinguished, the release was "extremely broad and all-inclusive," and it was a standardized form "offering little or no opportunity for negotiation."
• Yauger v. Skiing Enterprises, Inc., 206 Wis. 2d 76, 557 N.W.2d 60 (1996). An 11-year-old skier was killed after her father signed a family season pass application that said "we agree to hold [the ski resort] harmless." The form was void because it failed to "clearly, unambiguously, and unmistakably" explain that the signer was accepting the risk of the ski hill's negligence, and the form as a whole failed to alert the signer to the nature and significance of what was being signed.
• Atkins (2005). A swimmer drowned in a fitness center's lap pool. The waiver was void because it was overly broad (it used the word "fault," which could reach intentional acts), it was combined with a guest registration card with no separate signature for the waiver, and there was "little or no opportunity to bargain."
• Roberts v. T.H.E. Insurance Co., 2016 WI 20, 367 Wis. 2d 386, 879 N.W.2d 492. A woman was hurt by a tethered hot air balloon while waiting in line at a charity event. The waiver was void because it was "overly broad and all-inclusive," was a standard printed form with "no opportunity to bargain or negotiate," and didn't clearly cover waiting in line.

Roberts also describes a two-step test: first, does the release cover the activity at all; second, if it does, is it enforceable under public policy. We did not find a later Wisconsin Supreme Court decision on a recreational waiver.

The Court of Appeals Has Enforced a Well-Drafted Release

In Schabelski v. Nova Casualty Co., 2022 WI App 41, 404 Wis. 2d 217, 978 N.W.2d 530, a skier fell from a chairlift at a Wisconsin ski area. The one-page lift ticket release listed specific categories of negligence it covered, named "NEGLIGENCE" expressly, and let customers choose between the base ticket price with the release or "a higher ticket price with no release." The Court of Appeals held that this gave customers an opportunity to bargain and rejected the public policy challenge. The release barred claims about chairlift loading. It did not bar the claim about the staff's rescue attempt, because the release did not "clearly, unambiguously, and unmistakably" cover negligent rescue. In 2025 the Court of Appeals upheld a similar ski area release that also offered a pay-more option in Becker v. Nova Casualty Co. (No. 2024AP410), an unpublished per curiam decision that can't be cited as precedent.

Gross Negligence and Intentional Harm

A Wisconsin waiver can at most release negligence. Atkins said "a waiver of liability for an intentional act would clearly place the exculpatory clause in violation of public policy," and the Court of Appeals treats reckless conduct as outside any release. In Schabelski, the release applied only because the ski area's conduct did not, as a matter of law, rise to recklessness.

Waivers for Minors in Wisconsin

We did not find a published Wisconsin appellate decision deciding whether a parent can sign away a child's future negligence claims, so this is unsettled. Yauger involved a form a father signed for his family, but the court voided it on the clarity grounds above. Given how strictly Wisconsin courts read releases signed by adults for themselves, a parent's signature can't be counted on to bar a child's claim.

Wisconsin Activity Laws

• Participation in recreational activities (Wis. Stat. 895.525). A participant at a facility open to the public "accepts the risks inherent in the recreational activity," and has duties such as acting within their ability and heeding warnings. This is not immunity. Accepting those risks counts as the participant's own negligence under Wisconsin's comparative negligence statute (895.045).
• Equine activities (895.481). Immunity for inherent risks of equine activities, but equine professionals must post signs in a set format, with letters at least one inch high, and any written rental or instruction contract must include the statutory notice "in clearly readable bold print."
• Agricultural tourism (895.524). Immunity for inherent risks applies only if the provider posts the statutory notice sign at each entrance or activity location. It doesn't cover willful or wanton disregard for safety or intentional harm.

More Than a Release

Even apart from the release, a signed agreement does useful work in Wisconsin:

• A record of your warnings. Under section 895.525, participants accept a recreational activity's inherent risks and have a duty to heed warnings. A form that describes the risks and your rules, with each one acknowledged, is evidence of what each guest was told. How much it matters depends on the facts.
• The equine contract notice. Section 895.481 requires its notice in any written rental or instruction contract, so a stable's signed agreement is a natural place for it. The posted signs are required too.
• Rules and family consent. Guests agree to your rules, and a parent's form documents that the parent was told about the risks, approved the child's participation and agreed to the rules.
• Medical information and consent. Health conditions, emergency contacts, consent to treatment and photo consent, collected before anyone takes part.

Points to Raise With Your Attorney

WaiverFile doesn't draft waivers, and the wording of your agreement is a job for you and your attorney. Because Wisconsin is so strict, these points from the cases above are worth raising:

• A separate document. The court in Atkins faulted a waiver folded into a guest registration card with no separate signature, and Richards faulted a form that served two purposes.
• Specific language. Atkins faulted the word "fault," and Roberts faulted an "overly broad and all-inclusive" form. The release in Schabelski named negligence and listed specific categories.
• Coverage that matches what happens. Roberts turned on waiting in line and Schabelski on a rescue attempt.
• Opportunity to bargain. In Schabelski and Becker that was a priced option to buy access without signing the release.
• Alerting the signer. Yauger asked whether the form alerted the signer to the nature and significance of the document.
• The record. Exactly what text each person saw and signed, and when.

How WaiverFile Helps Wisconsin Businesses

Once your agreement is written, WaiverFile makes it easy for every guest to sign it and keeps a complete, easy-to-find record of each one:

• Your agreement, laid out your way. Add the agreement text you and your attorney prepared, and use the editor's formatting options (bold, capitals, font size) to lay it out the way it was written. The wording and format are up to you.
• Separate forms for separate purposes. Unlimited forms let the release be its own document, apart from registration, membership or media consent forms.
• A checkbox or initials where you want them. Add initial boxes inside the agreement text and required checkboxes for the paragraphs, risks and rules you choose, so each one has its own acknowledgment.
• A record of what was signed. Each signed form stores the signature, the answers, and the date and time, plus the IP address and device for online signing. Add a photo of each signer or their ID if you like.
• Families on one form. A parent or guardian signs for themselves and adds each child by name and date of birth, and minors are flagged at check-in.
• Medical questions. Required questions capture health conditions and emergency contacts. HIPAA features add extra protection for health information.
• Sign anywhere. Guests sign ahead by email, text, QR code or your website, with time to read, or on a tablet on-site, in multiple languages, and the Venue app works offline. Waivers are built into online booking, so you see each guest's status at check-in.
• Records you can produce. Search any waiver in seconds, send guests an email copy, or download signed waivers in bulk as a ZIP file for any date range.

Start with one of our free waiver templates, adapt it for Wisconsin with your attorney, and set up a free account to start collecting signatures.

Sources and Further Reading

• Wis. Stat. 137.15 (UETA, legal recognition of electronic signatures)
• Federal ESIGN Act, 15 U.S.C. 7001
• Atkins v. Swimwest Family Fitness Center, 2005 WI 4, 277 Wis. 2d 303, 691 N.W.2d 334
• Roberts v. T.H.E. Insurance Co., 2016 WI 20, 367 Wis. 2d 386, 879 N.W.2d 492 (also discusses Richards v. Richards, 1994, and Yauger v. Skiing Enterprises, 1996)
• Schabelski v. Nova Casualty Co., 2022 WI App 41, 404 Wis. 2d 217
• Becker v. Nova Casualty Co., No. 2024AP410 (Wis. Ct. App. Feb. 4, 2025) (unpublished)
• Wis. Stat. 895.525 (participation in recreational activities)
• Wis. Stat. 895.481 (equine activities)
• Wis. Stat. 895.524 (agricultural tourism)
• Marquette University Law School Faculty Blog, "Any Chance of Protection?" (2013)

Published November 4, 2026