Wisconsin
Wisconsin has no statute on service deposits. Its Supreme Court asks whether a kept deposit is reasonable in light of all the circumstances, looking at the forecast made at booking and at what actually happened. A deposit sized as a fair forecast of a no-show’s cost holds, and the client has to prove it grossly disproportionate to the actual harm. The weakest position is keeping a full deposit after refilling the slot at no loss, since the court has noted decisions treating a clause as a penalty when the other side suffered no damage. A policy that says what the deposit covers helps the shop.
Does a non-refundable deposit hold up in Wisconsin?
The Wisconsin Supreme Court’s single test, from Wassenaar v. Panos, is whether the clause is reasonable in light of all the circumstances: whether the injury was hard to estimate when the contract was made and whether the amount is a reasonable forecast of the harm, judged looking both forward from the contract and back from the breach. The party challenging the clause must prove the amount grossly disproportionate to the actual harm, and Wassenaar noted earlier Wisconsin decisions treating a clause as a penalty if the other side suffers no damage. Kernz v. J.L. French Corp. restates the rule, weighing both the harm anticipated at signing and the actual harm at the breach.
“The overall single test of validity is whether the clause is reasonable under the totality of circumstances. ... the party challenging the contract, carries the burden of proving that the stipulated amount of damages is grossly disproportionate to the actual harm and thus unreasonable.” Wassenaar v. Panos, 111 Wis. 2d 518, 331 N.W.2d 357 (1983) · Kernz v. J.L. French Corp., 2003 WI App 140, 266 Wis. 2d 124, 667 N.W.2d 751
Showing your refund policy
Wisconsin has no general refund-posting law; the Department of Agriculture, Trade and Consumer Protection says each business may set its own return policy. One rule reaches services in a narrow case. Under ATCP 127, when a shop starts the contact itself, by email or mail to a particular client or face to face away from the shop, it has to disclose in writing, before taking a card number or any payment, the total cost, all material terms and conditions, and any policy that prevents or substantially limits refunds or cancellations. A request the client started on their own, or a conversation at the shop, is outside it.
“before the seller takes the consumer's credit card number or accepts any payment ... total cost ... All material terms and conditions ... The seller's policy related to refunds, cancellations, exchanges, or repurchases” Wis. Admin. Code ATCP 127.34 · Wis. Admin. Code ATCP 127.64 · Wis. Admin. Code ATCP 127.01 · DATCP, Return and Refund Policies
- Your whole deposit policy is on the pay screen above a box your client ticks, and the Pay button stays off until they tick it. The deposit keeps the exact words and the moment they agreed.
- You can pay the $3.99 fee yourself: it is one switch in Set-up, the second tab of Deposits in your dashboard. Then your client pays exactly the deposit and sees no fee anywhere, so every amount on your deposit page is exactly what your client pays. When your client pays the fee instead, the pay screen lists the deposit, the fee and the total, and the Pay button says the total, but the buttons on your deposit page show the deposit alone.
- The receipt does not carry the price of the tattoo or piercing itself, and the pay screen says the final price is set at the appointment and the deposit comes off it. A shop that wants the price in front of the client before they pay, and on the receipt after, writes it in the note on that client’s own deposit link: the pay screen shows the note, and the receipt carries it.
Body-art rules and money
Nothing about deposits or refunds in Wisconsin’s tattooing and body piercing rules (Wis. Admin. Code ch. SPS 221) or its body art statute (Wis. Stat. ch. 463). The money in them is license, inspection and late fees paid to the Department of Safety and Professional Services.
This page summarizes public law in plain language, with the source each point comes from, read at the source on 2026-09-23. It is not legal advice.