Which place’s debt rules apply—and who can help?

S_WI PASS-01 — Wisconsin provider market access and consumer fees

Actual fresh source-access date: October 25, 2026, Pacific time Research mode/model: Regular Chat public-web research using GPT-5.6 Sol Pro as the owner-authorized quality-first fallback; not GPT-6 Pro and not Deep Research. Component boundary: Provider classification, Wisconsin market access, and consumer-fee authority only. This is not acceptance of Wisconsin’s full state dossier. Agreement terms, custody/trust mechanics beyond the necessary fee boundary, bond adequacy, remedies, collection law, litigation, limitations, exemptions, secured debt, sector rules, local law, tribal law, contract law, and broader case law remain open.

Executive disposition

Wisconsin has an operating licensure pathway, not a categorical ban, for a business that charges Wisconsin debtors to distribute payments, negotiate concessions, or settle/reduce debts. The relevant authorization is an adjustment service company license issued by the Wisconsin Department of Financial Institutions, Division of Banking, through NMLS. A covered provider may not lawfully substitute an “advisor,” “credit counselor,” “noncustodial negotiator,” “law firm partner,” or “nonprofit” label for the required conduct analysis. Published Wisconsin decisions have applied the statute to providers that never possessed or distributed the debtor’s funds and to an out-of-state provider serving a Wisconsin resident remotely. Wisconsin Court System+3

Current Wisconsin rules allow either:

1. a monthly distribution fee capped at the lesser of 10% of money paid to the licensee for creditor distribution or $120 per calendar month; or
2. a performance fee using one percentage across all enrolled debts, capped at 30% of the savings actually negotiated.

A separately limited one-time budget-setup charge is also allowed. Wisconsin’s amount ceiling does not itself establish when a settlement fee is earned. Where the federal Telemarketing Sales Rule applies, its separate valid-agreement, customer-payment, and fee-allocation requirements control timing. DFI+3

The performance-fee amendment was promulgated in CR 24-049 and became effective October 1, 2025. The official current chapter history reflects that amendment, and no later Wisconsin amendment affecting these provisions was located through the October 25, 2026 access date. The official integrated chapter page repeatedly timed out, so current text was reconstructed only from the final rule package, official section-index results, the chapter history, and DFI’s current FAQ. That accessibility limitation is preserved rather than hidden. Wisconsin Legislative Documents+2

A. Substantive findings

1. Classification of the covered business models

1.1 Statutory definition

Wis. Stat. §218.02(1)(a) defines an “adjustment service company” as a corporation, LLC, association, partnership, or an individual engaged as principal in the business of either:

• prorating a debtor’s income to one or more creditors; or
• assuming a debtor’s obligations by purchasing the debtor’s creditor accounts,

in return for a service charge or other consideration. The statute itself does not separately define “debt settlement,” “debt management,” or “credit counseling.” S_WI-P1-C001. Justia Law

1.2 Conduct matrix

In JK Harris, the court rejected the argument that “prorating” necessarily requires physical receipt and distribution of the debtor’s money. Negotiating reductions or extended payment terms and helping establish a budget/payment plan was enough. The purpose and result of the communications mattered; calling the provider an advisor or counselor did not change the underlying conduct. S_WI-P1-C003, C004, C008. Wisconsin Court System

Morgan Drexen likewise rejected the proposition that the provider had to own the debt. The phrase “engaged as principal” was treated as distinguishing an employee from an individual sole proprietor, not as requiring the provider to be the creditor or owner of the account. S_WI-P1-C003, C012. Wisconsin Court System

1.3 Custodial versus noncustodial models

Wisconsin’s published coverage decisions eliminate custody as the decisive boundary:

• Traditional receipt-and-distribution plans are covered.
• Direct-to-creditor consumer payments do not prevent coverage.
• A separate debtor-controlled account does not change the provider’s underlying classification.
• The provider’s authority over or affiliation with the account administrator matters for the dedicated-account conditions, but not for whether paid settlement conduct is an adjustment service. S_WI-P1-C002–C005. Wisconsin Court System+1

1.4 Resident and remote-provider nexus

DFI currently states that a company must hold a Wisconsin license to offer covered services to Wisconsin debtors but need not be physically located in Wisconsin. In Payday Loan Resolution, a Florida provider’s website acquisition, communications, contract, power of attorney, dedicated-account agreement, and required Wisconsin-resident payments were sufficient Wisconsin contacts. The result is fact-specific; it should not be converted into a universal rule based solely on a website being viewable in Wisconsin. S_WI-P1-C010. Wisconsin Court System+1

1.5 Consumer versus business purpose

Unlike Wisconsin’s separate credit-services-organization provisions and federal CROA, §218.02 does not expressly limit “debtor” to personal, family, or household debt. However, all three published adjustment-service decisions reviewed and DFI’s operational guidance concern Wisconsin consumers or residents. This pass therefore does not establish either:

• a categorical commercial-debt exclusion; or
• categorical application to every business-debt engagement.

That boundary remains held for targeted agency-order, case-law, and statutory-context research. S_WI-P1-C009.

2. Prohibited, licensed, authorized, and potentially exempt models

2.1 General licensing result

Every adjustment service company must apply to the Division of Banking for a license before engaging in the covered business. The statute calls for a separate license for each office operated under the section, requires use of NMLS and a valid NMLS unique identifier, and permits DFI to impose a bond of up to $5,000. Issuance depends on the required filing and fees, financial responsibility, experience, character, general fitness, honest/fair/efficient operation, and DFI’s convenience-and-advantage finding. S_WI-P1-C011–C014. Justia Law

Wisconsin is therefore properly classified for this component as:

Covered conduct is licensable but prohibited while unlicensed.

It is not an ordinary registration-only state, and the presence of a license application does not legalize conduct outside the license or conduct using unapproved fees.

2.2 Operational model matrix

2.3 Nonprofit status

No nonprofit exemption appears in the text of §218.02 reviewed. DFI’s October 2025 supplemental application asks an applicant to identify itself as for-profit or nonprofit, and DFI’s historical guidance observes that many licensed adjustment service companies are nonprofit entities. Those materials strongly undermine any claim that nonprofit status itself eliminates licensing. They do not establish that every nonprofit activity is covered; the underlying conduct and consideration still matter. S_WI-P1-C015. DFI+2

2.4 Attorneys

No categorical attorney exemption was located in §218.02 or the operative portions of ch. DFI-Bkg 73 reviewed. But JK Harris did not hold that all lawyers are adjustment service companies. It expressly said the case did not present DFI action against attorneys or other separately regulated professionals and reserved that issue for a future case. Therefore:

• an attorney connection is not a verified safe harbor;
• ordinary legal representation should not automatically be classified as adjustment-service activity from this record; and
• an attorney-branded or attorney-affiliated commercial settlement program requires a conduct-specific analysis.

S_WI-P1-C016. Wisconsin Court System

2.5 Financial institutions, original creditors, and self-creditor activity

No broad bank, credit-union, lender, original-creditor, or own-debt exemption was established in the adjustment-service statute or rule materials read. Separate Wisconsin CSO and federal CROA exclusions exist, but those are not automatically ASC exclusions. Institutional charter authority, federal preemption, incidental powers, and the distinction between changing one’s own debt and acting for a debtor against third-party creditors remain unresolved. S_WI-P1-C017.

2.6 Consequences of unlicensed operation

The published cases establish substantial enforcement risk:

• Morgan Drexen affirmed disgorgement of $4,253,081.93 in fees collected from Wisconsin debtors during unlicensed operation.
• Payday Loan Resolution involved an order to cease serving Wisconsin residents without a license and refund money not paid to creditors.

These decisions show available outcomes; they do not establish that an identical refund formula is automatic in every future matter. S_WI-P1-C018. Wisconsin Court System+1

3. Current fee authority

3.1 Controlling current architecture

The current fee rule permits either the monthly distribution plan or the performance-fee plan. It does not permit the licensee to combine both consumer fee methods for the same contract. A separately limited one-time setup charge remains available. S_WI-P1-C019. DFI+2

3.2 Consumer and creditor fee table

The current DFI FAQ describes these as the only fees a licensed adjustment service company may charge a Wisconsin consumer and identifies either the monthly or performance plan. The operative rule introduction also states that permitted debtor fees include charges “of any kind or nature whatsoever,” must be agreed in advance, and must be stated in the contract. S_WI-P1-C019, C025. DFI+1

3.3 Monthly distribution plan

The monthly formula is:

monthly fee=min⁡(0.10×funds paid to licensee for creditor distribution, $120)\text{monthly fee} = \min(0.10 \times \text{funds paid to licensee for creditor distribution},\ $120)monthly fee=min(0.10×funds paid to licensee for creditor distribution, $120)The base is not enrolled debt, projected debt, or the consumer’s total monthly deposit generally. It is the amount paid to the licensee to be distributed to creditors. The specific state timing clause says the distribution fee may not be assessed until the debtor has paid the licensee for distribution. S_WI-P1-C020, C030. Wisconsin Legislative Documents+1

3.4 Performance-fee plan

The performance plan added by CR 24-049 permits a fee calculated as a percentage of the amount saved through renegotiation, settlement, reduction, or alteration of a debt. The rule requires:

• the same percentage for each enrolled debt;
• no more than 30% of the amount saved; and
• savings measured from the amount owed when the debt was enrolled to the amount actually paid to satisfy it.

The Wisconsin formula resembles the federal TSR’s same-percentage-of-savings allocation method, but the two authorities remain legally separate. S_WI-P1-C021. Wisconsin Legislative Documents+3

3.5 One-time setup charge

DFI-Bkg 73.01(2) allows one budget-setup charge not exceeding $50, or $25 if the debtor continues with a debt-adjustment plan administered by the licensee. The text establishes the final cap but did not yield an official current instruction explaining whether a provider may initially collect $50 and later issue a $25 credit or refund, or instead must collect only $25 when continuation is anticipated. That implementation point remains held. S_WI-P1-C022, C041. DFI+1

3.6 Creditor contributions

The rule separately allows a voluntary creditor contribution of no more than 15% of funds disbursed to that creditor. Disbursements may not discriminate according to willingness to contribute, and records must show the amount credited when the contribution is deducted from a remittance. This is a creditor-side payment, not authority to increase the consumer’s fee. S_WI-P1-C023. Wisconsin Legislative Documents+1

3.7 Aggregate and per-debt limits

No separate statewide dollar cap on total program fees was located. Instead:

• the monthly method has a per-calendar-month cap;
• the performance method has a 30%-of-savings cap applied using one percentage across debts;
• only listed fee categories may be assessed to the debtor;
• the setup fee has its separate one-time cap; and
• no fee may be charged on funds advanced or returned.

A provider therefore cannot infer an unlisted per-debt, enrollment, administration, platform, legal-review, negotiation, or processing fee simply because the aggregate remains below some hypothetical total. S_WI-P1-C024–C028.

3.8 No verified indexing

No CPI, annual adjustment, bulletin-based escalator, or agency notice changing the current fixed dollar figures was located. The current verified figures are the rule’s facial amounts. No independent CPI calculation has been made. S_WI-P1-C026.

3.9 Reconciliation with older fee materials

Older third-party reproductions still display pre-October-2025 language saying “both of the 2 alternative fee plans,” while omitting the new performance-fee architecture. DFI’s current FAQ says either, and CR 24-049 amended the rule effective October 1, 2025. The stale reproduction and DFI’s April 2020 guidance are useful only as historical evidence; neither controls current performance fees. S_WI-P1-C029. Justia Regulations+2

4. When fees may be requested or received

4.1 Wisconsin rules

The current state material establishes the following:

1. Debtor fees must be agreed upon in advance and stated in the contract.
2. A distribution fee cannot be assessed until the debtor has paid the licensee money for distribution to creditors.
3. No fee may be charged on money advanced or returned to the debtor.
4. The performance-fee rule supplies the base, percentage consistency requirement, and maximum amount.
5. No Wisconsin provision recovered in this pass expressly states that the performance fee becomes earned at acceptance, first creditor payment, completion of all settlement payments, or final satisfaction.

State-law conclusion: Wisconsin’s 30% performance ceiling is an amount limitation, not a verified independent advance-fee authorization. S_WI-P1-C030, C031. Justia Regulations+2

DFI’s revised annual-report form defines a debt as “settled” for reporting purposes when the person has accepted a settlement and made at least one payment. The form does not say that its reporting definition establishes when a fee is legally earned, and it should not be used to silently fill the missing substantive state trigger. S_WI-P1-C037. DFI

4.2 Federal TSR timing when applicable

The federal rule independently prohibits requesting or receiving payment for a covered debt-relief service until:

1. the seller or telemarketer has renegotiated, settled, reduced, or otherwise altered at least one debt under a valid settlement agreement, DMP, or similar agreement executed by the customer;
2. the customer has made at least one payment under that customer-creditor or customer-debt-collector agreement; and
3. for individually altered debts, the fee uses either:the same proportional relationship between the individual debt and the entire enrolled balance; orthe same percentage of savings from one debt to another.

S_WI-P1-C032. eCFR+1

Thus, even where Wisconsin permits a 30%-of-savings amount, a TSR-covered provider cannot request or receive that fee merely because:

• the consumer signed the provider contract;
• the consumer funded a dedicated account;
• the provider made a creditor offer;
• the creditor made an unaccepted offer;
• a settlement exists but the consumer has not made the required first payment; or
• a state amount cap has not been exceeded.

TSR coverage limitation

The TSR is not universal debt-relief law. Its application depends on its telemarketing definitions, transaction facts, and exemptions. The definition covers represented services that renegotiate, settle, or alter terms of unsecured debt. The inbound-call exemption contains debt-relief-related limits, while qualifying business-to-business calls are generally exempt. Exact campaign, call, advertisement, and customer-purpose facts must be checked before applying the TSR. S_WI-P1-C033. eCFR+1

4.3 Debtor-controlled dedicated accounts

Wisconsin’s current rule permits a provider to request or require a debtor-controlled account for creditor payments and provider fees only under conditions including:

• funds at a federally insured institution;
• debtor ownership of the funds and receipt of accrued interest;
• an administrator not owned, controlled by, or affiliated with the provider;
• no compensation exchanged for referrals involving the provider;
• withdrawal from the provider’s services without penalty;
• return within seven business days of account funds other than fees lawfully earned under the rule; and
• administrator fees that are reasonable and no higher than market rates.

The right is properly described as a right to withdraw from the services, followed by return of account funds. It is not an unconditional rule that every Wisconsin debtor may close any bank account or demand any bank withdrawal through the ASC statute. It applies to this dedicated-account branch. S_WI-P1-C030, C031, C034. eCFR+3

Where the TSR also applies, its account provision uses the same critical object: the customer may withdraw from the debt-relief service at any time without penalty and must receive all account funds other than fees earned in compliance with the federal performance conditions within seven business days. eCFR

4.4 Credit-improvement representations

A debt-settlement provider does not become a credit-repair organization merely because debt resolution might indirectly affect credit. But express or implied representations that the service will remove derogatory information or improve a credit record, history, or rating can trigger separate regimes.

Federal telemarketing credit-repair timing

For TSR-covered goods or services represented to remove derogatory information or improve a person’s credit history, record, or rating, no payment may be requested or received until:

• the represented time frame for providing all goods or services has expired; and
• the seller has provided a consumer report demonstrating the promised results, issued more than six months after those results were achieved.

The rule preserves the FCRA requirement that a consumer report be obtained only for a permissible purpose. S_WI-P1-C035. eCFR+1

Federal CROA

Where the federal Credit Repair Organizations Act applies, it covers personal, family, or household credit-improvement services and imposes its own exclusions, written-contract requirements, three-business-day cancellation right, and prohibition on charging before the agreed service is fully performed. Its nonprofit exclusion is specifically tied to qualifying §501(c)(3) organizations; a self-applied “nonprofit” description is not enough. S_WI-P1-C036. U.S. Code+3

Wisconsin credit-services organizations

Wisconsin separately regulates paid credit-improvement, credit-extension, and related advice services under Wis. Stat. §§422.501–422.506. The definition and exclusions include a licensed adjustment service company acting within the scope of its license, certain regulated financial institutions, qualifying nonprofits, and qualifying attorney conduct. That exclusion protects an already licensed ASC only while acting within its licensed scope; it is not an exemption from §218.02. Wisconsin CSO registration, bond, and cancellation rules may matter when actual marketing or services extend beyond adjustment-service activity. No Wisconsin CSO consumer-fee cap was established in this pass. S_WI-P1-C045. Justia Law+3

5. Public market-access procedure and lookup

5.1 Issuing regulator and application route

The issuing regulator is the Wisconsin Department of Financial Institutions, Division of Banking. DFI directs adjustment service company applicants to apply and maintain the license through NMLS. Its operating page identifies the governing statute and rule and states financial-statement expectations including tangible net worth of at least $6,000 and positive working capital. S_WI-P1-C037, C038. DFI+1

The application sequence publicly evidenced is:

1. submit the Wisconsin ASC license application through NMLS;
2. submit the Wisconsin supplemental materials identified by DFI;
3. satisfy statutory application, financial, fitness, location, and any bond requirements;
4. maintain the NMLS unique identifier and current material information; and
5. renew on the applicable annual schedule.

The October 2025 supplemental form asks, among other things, whether the applicant services Wisconsin clients, whether separate entities perform advertising, recruiting, payment processing, or related functions, and whether the applicant is for-profit or nonprofit. S_WI-P1-C037. DFI+1

5.2 Government charges

These are provider/government charges, not consumer fees:

The statute allows DFI to demand investigation costs above the initial $200 when actual investigation costs exceed it. S_WI-P1-C040. Justia Law+1

5.3 Public lookup

DFI maintains a public adjustment service company licensee list displaying business names and NMLS identifiers. The page provides a real public verification route, but the visible page reviewed did not state an explicit “as of” date. It is therefore evidence of the lookup procedure, not conclusive proof of a provider’s status on an unstated historical date. S_WI-P1-C039. DFI

No named provider was searched or certified in this pass. A marketing statement, NMLS identifier appearing on a website, or inclusion on a stale screenshot is not a substitute for a current entity-specific lookup. S_WI-P1-C042.

5.4 Reporting evidence

DFI’s revised November 2025 annual-report form contains separate schedules for debt-management and debt-settlement operations. It requests enrolled-debt amounts, provider fees, debtor-controlled-account administrator fees, completed-program savings, fees paid, cancellations, unsettled debts, and settlement activity. This demonstrates current operational supervision of both models under the ASC license; it does not create a second statutory license class or independent fee authorization. S_WI-P1-C041. DFI+3

5.5 Current-law and precedent status

The official Wisconsin online-statutes status material was checked through 2025 Wis. Act 247, the session-law label used for legislation enacted in 2026. Section 218.02’s displayed history ends with 2023 Wis. Act 267, and no later targeted amendment to that section was located. S_WI-P1-C043. Wisconsin Legislative Documents+2

JK Harris and Morgan Drexen applied an older “great-weight deference” framework to DFI’s legal interpretations. Current Wis. Stat. §227.57(11) says reviewing courts must accord no deference to an agency’s interpretation of law. The published holdings have not been treated here as erased, but the superseded deference methodology counsels against extending them beyond the conduct and issues actually decided. S_WI-P1-C044. Wisconsin Legislative Documents+1

B. Source table

All access/check dates below are October 25, 2026 Pacific, unless a row expressly identifies a historical document date.

C. Claim table

D. Worked examples and coverage/gap table

D1. Monthly distribution-fee examples

Example D1-A — $900 creditor-distribution payment

Assumptions

• Provider is licensed.
• Contract chooses the monthly distribution method, not the performance method.
• Consumer pays the licensee $900 in the calendar month specifically for distribution to creditors.
• Setup charge is excluded from the $900 base.

Calculation

• Base: $900
• Percentage operator: 10%
• Percentage result: 0.10 × $900 = $90
• Dollar ceiling: $120
• Allowed monthly fee: min($90, $120) = $90

Timing: The $90 may not be assessed before the debtor has paid the $900 to the licensee for creditor distribution. C020, C030.

Example D1-B — $1,800 creditor-distribution payment

• Base: $1,800
• 10% × $1,800 = $180
• Compare to $120 calendar-month ceiling
• Allowed monthly fee: $120

No performance fee may be added under the alternative performance plan for the same contract. A separately lawful setup fee remains subject to §73.01(2). DFI+1

D2. Performance fee with completed satisfaction

Example D2-A — Maximum percentage

Assumptions

• Licensed provider.
• Contract selects the performance plan.
• Uniform contract rate: 30% for every enrolled debt.
• One debt was $10,000 at enrollment.
• Consumer ultimately paid $6,000 to satisfy it.

Calculation

• Enrollment amount: $10,000
• Amount actually paid to satisfy: $6,000
• Savings: $10,000 − $6,000 = $4,000
• Fee: 30% × $4,000 = $1,200

State amount ceiling: $1,200.

That result establishes only the maximum amount under the assumed contract. The provider must also satisfy the actual earning/timing rules. If the TSR applies, there must be a valid altered-debt agreement, at least one payment under the consumer-creditor/debt-collector agreement, and compliant fee allocation. C021, C031, C032.

Example D2-B — Lower debt

• Enrollment amount: $800
• Amount actually paid to satisfy: $600
• Savings: $200
• Uniform rate: 30%
• Fee: 0.30 × $200 = $60

Example D2-C — No savings

• Enrollment amount: $1,000
• Amount actually paid to satisfy: $1,000
• Savings: $0
• Performance-fee base: $0
• Fee: $0

No authority was located for converting zero or negative savings into a positive flat fee.

Rounding assumption: Calculations are carried to cents and rounded to the nearest cent only at the final step. No Wisconsin-specific rounding rule was located.

D3. Multi-debt performance contract with prior earnings and cancellation

Assumptions

• One contract uses a uniform 25% savings rate.
• Debt A: $10,000 enrolled; fully satisfied for $6,000.
• Debt B: $5,000 enrolled; no accepted settlement and no creditor payment.
• Current debtor-controlled-account balance at cancellation: $2,500.
• The $2,500 is the actual current balance after any previously posted independent administrator charges; no charge is subtracted twice.

Debt A

• Savings: $10,000 − $6,000 = $4,000
• Potential fee: 25% × $4,000 = $1,000

Debt B

No completed savings base exists, and under an applicable TSR no debt-relief fee is earned because there is no valid altered-debt agreement followed by a consumer payment.

Cancellation branches

Branch 1 — Debt A’s $1,000 fee was already lawfully collected before the balance became $2,500

• Current account balance: $2,500
• Additional fee deduction: $0
• Return: $2,500

The provider must not deduct the same fee twice.

Branch 2 — Debt A’s $1,000 fee was lawfully earned but not yet collected

• Current account balance: $2,500
• Maximum assumed earned deduction: $1,000
• Return: $2,500 − $1,000 = $1,500

This branch is valid only if every applicable contract, Wisconsin, and federal timing condition was met.

Branch 3 — The $1,000 fee was not lawfully earned

• Deduction: $0
• Return: $2,500

For the Wisconsin dedicated-account branch, the return is due within seven business days of the debtor’s qualifying request to withdraw from the provider’s services. C021, C031, C032, C034. eCFR

D4. Partial installment settlement

Facts

• Debt at enrollment: $5,000
• Settlement agreement calls for total creditor payments of $3,500.
• Consumer has made only the first $500 installment.
• Uniform performance rate: 30%.

The applicable TSR’s first-payment timing condition may have occurred, assuming the agreement is valid and the rule otherwise applies. But the Wisconsin performance formula uses the amount actually paid to satisfy the debt.

It would be unsound to calculate either:

• 30% × ($5,000 − $500) = $1,350, because the $500 has not satisfied the debt; or
• automatically 30% × ($5,000 − $3,500) = $450, without resolving whether Wisconsin treats the contractual settlement total as the “amount actually paid to satisfy” before all installments are completed.

Result: The final Wisconsin amount is held pending an authoritative DFI interpretation, order, approved contract, or controlling case on installment settlements. The annual-report form’s accepted-settlement-plus-one-payment definition is a reporting definition and does not resolve this substantive calculation. C031, C037, C042.

D5. Setup-fee transition

Facts

• Provider initially collects $50 as a one-time setup charge.
• Consumer then continues with a plan administered by the provider.
• Rule’s final continuing-plan cap: $25.

Numerical difference

• Initially collected: $50
• Continuing-plan cap: $25
• Excess relative to final cap: $50 − $25 = $25

Result: The provider cannot retain more than the applicable $25 cap on these assumptions. But this pass did not establish whether the exact required mechanism is an immediate refund, account credit, reversal, or prohibition on collecting the first $25 in advance. The mechanism remains held rather than invented. C022, C041.

D6. Creditor contribution

Facts

• Licensee disburses $1,000 to a creditor.
• Creditor voluntarily contributes the maximum 15%.

Calculation

• Base: $1,000 disbursed
• Operator: 15%
• Maximum creditor contribution: 0.15 × $1,000 = $150

This is not a $150 consumer fee. The licensee may not discriminate in disbursements based on the creditor’s willingness to contribute, and required records must accurately reflect the debtor’s account credit. C023.

D7. Unlicensed provider

Facts

• Provider performs covered Wisconsin settlement negotiations.
• Provider has no Wisconsin ASC license.
• Proposed fee would otherwise fit the 30%-of-savings formula.

Result: No lawful Wisconsin consumer-fee pathway is established. Numerical compliance with the fee cap does not cure the absence of the required license. Published cases support cessation and recovery of fees collected during unlicensed operation. C011, C018.

Component coverage and gap table

Exact next investigations

1. Retrieve the uninterrupted official current text of all of ch. DFI-Bkg 73 when the Wisconsin Legislature server permits it, and compare every current clause against CR 24-049.
2. Locate DFI declaratory rulings, contested-case orders, approved contract instructions, or examination guidance defining when a performance fee is “earned,” particularly for installment settlements.
3. Locate official guidance or orders governing the $50 setup charge when the debtor later continues and the applicable cap becomes $25.
4. Recover the live NMLS Wisconsin ASC checklist and verify every location, financial statement, control-person, bond, fingerprint/background, surrender, renewal, and amendment requirement.
5. Conduct targeted attorney, nonprofit, financial-institution, original-creditor, and business-debt exemption/boundary research without inferring exemptions from absence.
6. Run any future named-provider authorization inquiry through both the dated DFI list and current NMLS Consumer Access; do not rely on the provider’s marketing.
7. Complete the parent-state agreement, debtor-funds, trust, bond, examination, administrative-remedy, private-remedy, criminal-penalty, and refund passes.
8. Apply TSR, CROA, and Wisconsin CSO rules only to actual marketing, call-flow, debt-purpose, and service facts.
9. Complete all remaining collection, litigation, limitation, secured-debt, sector, local, tribal, contract, and broader case-law dimensions.

E. Researcher self-check

Actually read or inspected

• Wisconsin’s official §218.02 locator, section fragments, history, and official statute-currentness material.
• A contiguous 2025 reproduction of §218.02 as a secondary read-aid.
• The official Wisconsin appellate opinions in JK Harris, Morgan Drexen, and Payday Loan Resolution; relevant Payday PDF pages were visually inspected.
• DFI’s current ASC operating page, FAQ, forms index, licensee-list page, and government-fee page.
• The October 2025 supplemental application and November 2025 annual-report PDFs, including relevant page images.
• DFI’s April 29, 2020 historical unlicensed-company guidance, treated only as historical.
• CR 24-049 final-rule/indexed materials, current official rule-history results, and official indexed current section text.
• The exact federal TSR debt-relief and credit-repair timing provisions, debt-relief definition, dedicated-account provision, and relevant exemption material.
• Federal CROA definition/exclusion, advance-fee, contract, waiting-period, and cancellation provisions.
• Wisconsin CSO definition/exclusion, registration, financial-assurance, contract, cancellation, and agency-procedure materials.

Not fully read or not established

• The official integrated current ch. DFI-Bkg 73 page/PDF could not be retrieved as one contiguous document because repeated official-server fetches timed out. No contrary claim is made.
• The dynamic NMLS Wisconsin checklist did not return usable checklist text.
• No named provider’s license status was researched or certified.
• No application was filed; no person or agency was contacted.
• No attorney, nonprofit, bank, credit-union, original-creditor, commercial-debt, or institutional exemption was inferred from search failure.
• No precise Wisconsin performance-fee earning trigger or partial-installment calculation was invented.
• No setup-fee refund/credit mechanism was invented.
• No CPI adjustment was calculated.
• No full agreement, trust/funds, bond, remedies, collection, litigation, limitations, secured-debt, sector, local, tribal, contract, or comprehensive case-law pass was performed.

Process and provenance

• Actual research access date was October 25, 2026 Pacific, not copied from an older report.
• Regular Chat public-web tools were used.
• No Deep Research, Chrome control, Work-mode permission change, external browser-tab control, other Chat creation, account modification, CAPTCHA workaround, purchase, API purchase, private borrower data, or regulator contact occurred.
• Search snippets were used only where they exposed official indexed text and were cross-checked against final-rule materials and current DFI guidance; they were not treated as standalone provider authorization.
• This is the original researcher’s self-check, not an independent review.
• No claim of local file writes, publication readiness, or acceptance of the full Wisconsin dossier is made.

END S_WI PASS-01.