Indiana Telemarketing and Robocall Laws: Statutes, Rules, and How They Differ from the TCPA

Overview

The core of Indiana's telemarketing law is the Indiana Telephone Privacy Act, Ind. Code art. 24-4.7, enacted in 2001, which creates a state do-not-call listing maintained by the Consumer Protection Division of the Office of the Attorney General. A "telephone solicitor" may not make or cause a "telephone sales call" to a number on the most current quarterly listing, and the exemptions are narrower than the federal ones. There is no general established business relationship exemption. Only broadband communications service providers and financial institutions (and persons licensed by the Department of Financial Institutions) may rely on an established business relationship, and since July 1, 2024 the definition of "telephone sales call" expressly reaches text, image and multimedia messages.

Three companion chapters in Article 24-5 fill out the scheme. The Autodialer Law, Ind. Code ch. 24-5-14, bars any use of an "automatic dialing-announcing device" to deliver a prerecorded or synthesized message unless the subscriber consented or a live operator first obtains consent. The Indiana Supreme Court has held that it applies to all such calls, political calls included, and the Seventh Circuit has held that it is neither preempted by the federal Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) nor invalid under the First Amendment. Ind. Code ch. 24-5-12 requires registration of a defined class of "sellers" who use particular deceptive sales features and makes it a crime to block caller identification during solicitations. Ind. Code ch. 24-5-14.5 prohibits caller ID spoofing with intent to defraud, cause harm, or wrongfully obtain anything of value.

Enforcement is primarily public. Violations of the do-not-call, contract, and disclosure rules in Ind. Code ch. 24-4.7-4 are deceptive acts "actionable by the attorney general," with civil penalties of up to $10,000 for a first violation and $25,000 for each later violation. The Deceptive Consumer Sales Act's private damages remedy expressly does not apply to violations of Article 24-4.7 or chapters 24-5-12, 24-5-14, or 24-5-14.5. Private plaintiffs do have three narrower avenues: an injunction petition under the Autodialer Law, an actual damages action under the seller registration chapter and the anti-spoofing chapter, and a Deceptive Consumer Sales Act claim premised on a supplier's violation of the federal TCPA itself, which Ind. Code § 24-5-0.5-3(b)(19) declares a deceptive act.

Headline differences from federal law: a separate state list that must be purchased and scrubbed quarterly; no general established business relationship or nonprofit exemption; coverage of charitable solicitations placed by professional telemarketers; a written, signed contract requirement for most telephone sales; a 9 a.m. to 8 p.m. window for prerecorded commercial solicitations; and a prerecorded message consent rule that, unlike the TCPA, applies regardless of the type of telephone line or the content of the message.

Key statutes and regulations

Detailed provisions

1. State do-not-call listing (Ind. Code art. 24-4.7)

Who is protected. The Act protects a "consumer," defined in Ind. Code § 24-4.7-2-2(a) as:

"Consumer" means a residential telephone subscriber who: (1) for the telephone service received: (A) has a place of primary use in Indiana; or (B) is issued an Indiana telephone number or an Indiana identification number; and (2) is an actual or a prospective: (A) purchaser, lessee, or recipient of consumer goods or services; or (B) donor to a charitable organization.

Subsection (b) adds users of prepaid wireless service who are issued an Indiana number or whose purchase is sourced to Indiana. "Place of primary use" is defined in § 24-4.7-2-7.5 by reference to the subscriber's residential street address or, for interconnected VOIP service, the registered location, and for mobile service by the home service provider's licensed area. The Attorney General's guidance states that the law "applies only to residential landline numbers, wireless or VOIP telephone numbers associated with a residential address or a prepaid wireless number that is primarily used in Indiana," and that "The Do Not Call law does not permit business numbers to be included on the Do Not Call list."

Who is regulated. Under § 24-4.7-2-10, a telephone solicitor is "a person doing business in Indiana," and "The term includes a person that controls, directly or indirectly, one (1) or more other persons." "Doing business in Indiana" is defined in § 24-4.7-2-5:

Sec. 5. (a) "Doing business in Indiana" means: (1) making; or (2) causing others to make; telephone sales calls to consumers located in Indiana whether the telephone sales calls are made from a location in Indiana or outside Indiana. (b) A person that controls, directly or indirectly, one (1) or more persons that make or cause another person to make a telephone call to a consumer located in Indiana is "doing business in Indiana", no matter where the person is located or domiciled.

The control language in subsection (b) (the section was last amended by P.L.153-2017) is significant: a parent, owner, or lead buyer that controls a calling vendor is itself a telephone solicitor, wherever it sits. The Attorney General's guidance states that the law applies to both intrastate and interstate calls.

What is a telephone sales call. Section 24-4.7-2-9, as amended by P.L.148-2024, SEC.13, provides:

Sec. 9. (a) "Telephone sales call" means a telephone call made to a consumer for any of the following purposes: (1) Solicitation of a sale of consumer goods or services. (2) Solicitation of a charitable contribution. (3) Obtaining information that will or may be used for the direct solicitation of a sale of consumer goods or services or an extension of credit for such purposes. (b) The term includes any of the following: (1) A call made by use of an automated dialing device. (2) A call made by use of a recorded message device. (3) Transmission of: (A) a text message; (B) a graphic message; (C) an image; (D) a photograph; or (E) a multimedia message; to a telephone number through the use of short message service (SMS), multimedia messaging service (MMS), over-the-top (OTT) messaging or voice calling service, or any other technology or service that transmits messages to a device.

Two features stand out. First, charitable solicitations are covered, subject only to the narrow volunteer or employee exemption discussed below. Second, lead generation calls that only gather information "that will or may be used for the direct solicitation" of a sale are themselves telephone sales calls. "Consumer goods or services" includes "Credit cards or the extension of credit" (§ 24-4.7-2-3(4)).

The listing. Section 24-4.7-3-1(a) requires that "A quarterly listing of telephone numbers of Indiana consumers who request not to be solicited by telephone shall be established, maintained, and published as provided in this section." Under subsection (e), "The division shall establish a fee to be paid by a telephone solicitor for obtaining a copy of the listing," not to exceed cost. The Attorney General's telephone solicitor page states: "The fee is $750 annually, which includes four lists available quarterly." Lists for the quarters beginning January 1, April 1, July 1 and October 1 are made available in December, March, June and September respectively. The Attorney General's consumer FAQ explains that "Numbers registered after the publication date are held until the next quarter's list." Registration is free to consumers and does not expire unless the consumer moves or asks to be removed.

The core prohibition. Section 24-4.7-4-1:

Sec. 1. A telephone solicitor may not make or cause to be made a telephone sales call to a telephone number if that telephone number appears in the most current quarterly listing published by the division.

Section 24-4.7-4-3(b) separately requires that "A telephone solicitor, a supplier, a caller, or any other person who obtains consumer information that includes telephone numbers shall exclude the telephone numbers that appear on the division's most current listing." That duty runs to list brokers and data suppliers, not only callers (directory publishers for telephone companies are excepted by subsection (a)).

Secondary liability. Section 24-4.7-4-7, added by P.L.61-2014 and amended by P.L.227-2015, reaches the lead generation and transfer ecosystem:

(b) A telephone solicitor, a supplier, or a caller may not sell, transfer, or make available to another person for solicitation purposes a consumer's telephone number if the telephone solicitor, supplier, or caller knows that the telephone number appears in the most current quarterly listing published by the division. (c) A telephone solicitor, a supplier, or a caller may not transfer a live call to one (1) or more other persons if the call has been placed to a consumer in violation of this article or IC 24-5-14. (d) A telephone solicitor, a supplier, or a caller may not provide substantial assistance or support to another person if the telephone solicitor, supplier, or caller knows or consciously avoids knowing that the person has engaged in any act or practice that violates this article or IC 24-5-14.

Subsection (e) extends the "substantial assistance or support" prohibition to any person, with a carve-out for a communications service provider whose "equipment or services are used only to transport, handle, or retransmit a communication that violates this article or IC 24-5-14." The knowledge standard ("knows or consciously avoids knowing") tracks the assisting and facilitating provision of the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) Telemarketing Sales Rule (TSR), 16 C.F.R. § 310.3(b), but the Indiana provision also expressly bars live transfers of unlawfully placed calls.

Exemptions. Section 24-4.7-1-1 lists eight categories. In current form (as amended by P.L.115-2026, SEC.25):

Sec. 1. This article does not apply to any of the following: (1) A telephone call made in response to an express request of the person called. (2) A telephone call made primarily in connection with an existing debt or contract for which payment or performance has not been completed at the time of the call.

Paragraph (3) exempts calls on behalf of a section 501 tax-exempt charity "but only if all of the following apply: (A) The telephone call is made by a volunteer or an employee of the charitable organization," and the caller "immediately discloses" the solicitor's "true first and last name" and the charity's name, address, and telephone number. Paragraph (4) exempts real estate licensees under IC 25-34.1 if the sale is not completed and payment is not required until after a face to face sales presentation by the seller. Paragraph (5) exempts "A telephone call made by an individual licensed under IC 27-1-15.6 or IC 27-1-15.8 when the individual is soliciting an application for insurance or negotiating a policy of insurance on behalf of an insurer." Paragraph (6) exempts newspaper subscription calls by volunteers or employees. Paragraphs (7) and (8) contain the only established business relationship exemptions:

(7) Any telephone call made to a consumer by a communications service provider (as defined in IC 8-1-32.5-4 ) that: (A) offers broadband Internet service; and (B) has an established business relationship (as defined in 47 CFR 64.1200) with the consumer. (8) Any telephone call made to a consumer by: (A) a financial institution organized or reorganized under the laws of any state or the United States; or (B) a person licensed by the department of financial institutions under IC 37-1 , IC 37-2 , or 750 IAC 9; that has an established business relationship (as defined in 47 CFR 64.1200) with the consumer.

Because paragraphs (7) and (8) borrow the federal definition, the established business relationship for those callers is the federal 18-month (purchase) and 3-month (inquiry) window in 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200(f)(5). Every other seller, including retailers, home services companies, solar and energy marketers, and insurance agencies calling through unlicensed telemarketers, has no established business relationship defense under Indiana law. A seller's own customers can still be called under paragraph (2) if the call is "primarily in connection with an existing debt or contract for which payment or performance has not been completed," or under paragraph (1) if the consumer expressly requested the call.

Note that the charitable exemption depends on who places the call. A charity that hires a professional fundraising firm is subject to the listing; the Seventh Circuit upheld that line in National Coalition of Prayer, Inc. v. Carter (discussed below).

Caller disclosures. Section 24-4.7-4-2 applies to every telephone sales call, whether or not the number is listed:

Sec. 2. A telephone solicitor who makes a telephone sales call to a telephone number shall immediately disclose the following information upon making contact with the consumer: (1) The solicitor's true first and last name. (2) The name of the business or person on whose behalf the telephone solicitor is soliciting. (3) The person with which the solicitor is employed or has contracted.

The "true first and last name" requirement is stricter than federal law, which requires "the name of the individual caller" (47 C.F.R. § 64.1200(d)(4)) and the identity of the seller (16 C.F.R. § 310.4(d)(1)) but not a surname, and paragraph (3) requires disclosure of the calling vendor as well as the seller.

2. Written contract and payment rules (Ind. Code §§ 24-4.7-4-4, 24-4.7-4-5)

Indiana conditions the enforceability of telephone sales contracts on a signed writing. Section 24-4.7-4-4(b) states: "A contract made under a telephone sales call is not valid and enforceable against a consumer unless the contract complies with this section." Subsection (c) requires:

(1) The contract must be reduced to writing and signed by the consumer. (2) The contract must contain the name, address, and business telephone number of the seller, the total price of the contract, and a detailed description of the goods or services being sold. (3) The description of goods or services as stated in the contract must be the same as the description principally used in the telephone solicitation. (4) The contract must contain, in bold, conspicuous type immediately preceding the signature the words "you are not obligated to pay any money unless you sign this contract and return it to the seller". (5) The contract may not exclude from its terms any oral or written representations made by the telephone solicitor to the consumer in connection with the transaction.

The section does not apply to (1) a sale with no prior payment, an accompanying invoice, and a seven-day right to cancel or return; (2) a contract allowing "at least ten (10) days to cancel the contract and receive a full refund of the payment"; (3) a sale regulated by 170 IAC 7-1.1-19; and (4) newspaper subscriptions.

Section 24-4.7-4-5(c) adds a payment timing rule:

(c) A merchant who engages a telephone solicitor to make or cause to be made a telephone sales call may not: (1) make or submit a charge to a consumer's credit card account; or (2) make or cause to be made any electronic transfer of funds; until the merchant receives from the consumer a copy of the contract, signed by the consumer, that complies with this chapter.

Section 24-4.7-4-5(a) exempts transactions following negotiations during a visit to a fixed retail location, transactions with a full refund right or a seven-day cancellation and 30-day refund, purchases from a television, radio, print advertisement or catalog containing specified seller information, and bona fide charities. Subsection (b) provides that a contract made in violation of the section "is not valid and enforceable against a consumer."

Federal law has no comparable general writing requirement. The TSR requires "express verifiable authorization" only for payment methods other than credit and debit cards (16 C.F.R. § 310.3(a)(3)), and the FTC's three-day cooling-off rule for door-to-door sales excludes sales "Conducted and consummated entirely by mail or telephone" (16 C.F.R. § 429.0). In Indiana, an outbound telemarketer that takes a card number on the call and charges it before receiving a signed, compliant contract violates § 24-4.7-4-5(c) unless an exemption applies.

3. Autodialer Law: prerecorded and synthesized messages (Ind. Code ch. 24-5-14)

Device definition. Section 24-5-14-1:

Sec. 1. As used in this chapter, "automatic dialing-announcing device" means a device that: (1) selects and dials telephone numbers; and (2) working alone or in conjunction with other equipment, disseminates a prerecorded or synthesized voice message to the telephone number called.

The definition has two elements, and both must be met. It does not require that the device use a random or sequential number generator, so the narrowing construction the United States Supreme Court gave the federal "automatic telephone dialing system" definition in Facebook, Inc. v. Duguid, 592 U.S. 395 (2021), does not translate to this text. A system that dials numbers from a stored customer or lead list and plays a recorded or artificial voice message (including an AI-generated voice) appears to fall within the Indiana definition. Conversely, because element (2) requires a voice message, the chapter does not reach live-agent calls or text messages, which are instead governed by Article 24-4.7 and federal law. No reported Indiana appellate decision construing the "selects and dials" language after Duguid was located.

Who is a caller. Under § 24-5-14-2, "caller" includes any entity "that attempts to contact, or contacts, a subscriber in Indiana by using a telephone or telephone line," and individual officers and LLC members who have "a high degree of involvement in, or actual notice of," a noncompliant contact and fail "to take reasonable steps to prevent the unlawful contact or attempted contact." "Subscriber" includes "other persons living or residing with the subscribing person" (§ 24-5-14-4).

The consent rule. Section 24-5-14-5:

Sec. 5. (a) This section does not apply to any of the following messages: (1) Messages from school districts to students, parents, or employees. (2) Messages to subscribers with whom the caller has a current business or personal relationship. (3) Messages advising employees of work schedules. (b) A caller may not use or connect to a telephone line an automatic dialing-announcing device unless: (1) the subscriber has knowingly or voluntarily requested, consented to, permitted, or authorized receipt of the message; or (2) the message is immediately preceded by a live operator who obtains the subscriber's consent before the message is delivered.

The rule is not limited to commercial calls. In State v. American Family Voices, Inc., the Indiana Supreme Court held that "the law applies to all autodialer calls, not just consumer transaction calls with commercial messages," and in State v. Economic Freedom Fund it held that a challenge to the live-operator requirement as applied to political messages was unlikely to succeed under either the First Amendment or the Indiana Constitution. The consent standard is also not the federal "prior express written consent" standard; Indiana accepts consent that is knowing "or" voluntary, without a writing, but has no general exemption for informational, noncommercial, nonprofit, or healthcare messages of the kind the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) recognizes in 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200(a)(3).

Disconnect, disclosure and hours. Section 24-5-14-6 bars use of a device "unless the device is designed and operated to disconnect within ten (10) seconds after termination of the telephone call by the subscriber." When a live operator precedes the message, § 24-5-14-7 requires the operator to disclose, "at the outset of the message":

(1) The name of the business, firm, organization, association, partnership, or entity for which the message is being made. (2) The purpose of the message. (3) The identity or kinds of goods or services the message is promoting. (4) If applicable, the fact that the message intends to solicit payment or the commitment of funds.

Section 24-5-14-8(b) sets calling hours: "A caller may not use an automatic dialing-announcing device for commercial telephone solicitation so that a subscriber receives a telephone call before 9 a.m. or after 8 p.m." Messages exempt under § 24-5-14-5(a) are not subject to the hours rule. "Commercial telephone solicitation" is defined in § 24-5-14-3(a) as an unsolicited call to a subscriber with whom the caller "has not had a prior business or personal relationship" made to solicit a purchase of goods or services.

Prohibited destinations. Section 24-5-14-12 bars autodialed prerecorded calls to hospitals, ambulatory outpatient surgical centers, health facilities, emergency medical services facilities, emergency ambulance businesses, state institutions, private mental health institutions, residential facilities, law enforcement agencies and fire departments. P.L.145-2026, SEC.135 updated the cross-references for state institutions and residential facilities (to IC 12-7-2.1-318 and IC 12-7-2.1-292); the list of protected destinations did not change.

Remedies. Section 24-5-14-9 allows any person to petition the circuit or superior court of the petitioner's county for an injunction: "Upon petition by any person that a caller has failed to comply with this chapter, the circuit or superior court of the county of residence of the petitioner may enjoin the caller from further violations." A violation is a Class C misdemeanor (§ 24-5-14-10). The Attorney General may sue under § 24-5-14-13(a), which provides that a caller who violates the chapter "commits a deceptive act that is actionable by the attorney general under IC 24-5-0.5-4" and is subject to "a civil penalty of not more than the following: (A) Ten thousand dollars ($10,000) for the first violation. (B) Twenty-five thousand dollars ($25,000) for each violation after the first violation."

4. Caller ID: spoofing and blocking (Ind. Code ch. 24-5-14.5; § 24-5-12-25)

Spoofing. Section 24-5-14.5-9 applies to calls after June 30, 2013:

Sec. 9. Except as provided in section 10 of this chapter, a person shall not, in connection with any telecommunications service or interconnected VOIP service, knowingly and with the intent to defraud or cause harm to another person or to wrongfully obtain anything of value, cause any caller identification service to transmit misleading or inaccurate caller identification information to a subscriber.

This mirrors the intent standard of the federal Truth in Caller ID Act, 47 U.S.C. § 227(e). Section 24-5-14.5-10 excepts lawful caller ID blocking (subject to § 24-5-12-25), law enforcement and intelligence activity, court orders, and the Attorney General's federal enforcement authority under 47 U.S.C. 227(e)(6). The Attorney General may obtain DCSA remedies and, on proof of a knowing or intentional violation, "a civil penalty of not more than ten thousand dollars ($10,000) per violation" (§ 24-5-14.5-12(b)). Unlike the federal statute, which has no private right of action for spoofing, § 24-5-14.5-13(a) provides that "any person who is aggrieved by a violation of this chapter may bring an action for the recovery of the person's actual damages, including court costs and attorney's fees," against any person responsible for or who knowingly participated in the violation, plus injunctive relief under subsection (b). Under § 24-5-14.5-14, "A person does not have a cause of action against a provider for a violation of this chapter unless the violation resulted from the provider's gross negligence or intentional wrongdoing."

Blocking. Section 24-5-12-25(a) applies to any person (not only registered sellers) making a solicitation "outside of the course of dealing (as described in IC 26-1-1-205 )":

the person may not knowingly or intentionally block or attempt to block the display of the person's: (1) telephone number; or (2) identity; by a caller identification service (as defined in IC 24-5-14.5-3 ) when attempting to initiate a telephone conversation for the purpose of making a solicitation to a prospect.

A knowing or intentional violation is a Class B misdemeanor, or a Class A misdemeanor with a prior unrelated conviction (§ 24-5-12-25(b)). The federal rules impose an affirmative duty to transmit caller ID for telemarketing calls (47 C.F.R. § 64.1601(e); 16 C.F.R. § 310.4(a)(8)); Indiana instead criminalizes deliberate blocking.

5. Seller registration (Ind. Code ch. 24-5-12)

Indiana does not license telemarketers generally and imposes no bond. Its registration statute reaches only "sellers" as defined in § 24-5-12-8, which, since P.L.105-2020, is limited to persons who make a solicitation "if in the solicitation any one (1) of the following occurs":

(1) There is a false representation or implication that a prospect will receive a gift, prize, or the value of a gift or prize.

The other triggers are reduced-price vacation offers tied to time share or camping club presentations where the seller does not own or represent the property or misrepresents the vacation's value (paragraph (2)); office equipment and supply offers premised on a nonexistent price advantage (paragraph (3)); "a false representation or implication as to the identity of the person making the solicitation" (paragraph (4)); misrepresentation of the manufacturer or supplier (paragraph (5)); and offers of precious metals, precious stones, coal, other minerals, or oil, gas, or mineral interests where the seller does not own or represent the owner or misrepresents value (paragraph (6)). Section 24-5-12-0.2 adds: "This chapter does not apply to a seller solely because the seller makes or will make, during any calendar year, a solicitation in a telephone call that is exempt from the application of IC 24-4.7 under IC 24-4.7-1-1."

This scope history matters because the Attorney General's website still states: "Effective July 1, 2019, all Telephone Solicitors must register prior to doing business in Indiana." That statement reflects P.L.242-2019, which briefly defined "seller" as any person who "makes a solicitation." The 2019 edition of the Indiana Code shows that definition; the 2020 and later editions show the narrower, feature-based definition and the new § 24-5-12-0.2, both added by P.L.105-2020. Businesses that do not use any listed feature are not "sellers" under the current text. Because the Attorney General's public guidance describes broader coverage, a business outside the statutory definition should weigh that guidance in deciding whether to register.

A covered seller must register "before doing business in Indiana" (§ 24-5-12-10(a)), and does business in Indiana if it "makes or will make a solicitation during any calendar year: (1) from a location in Indiana; or (2) to a prospect who is located in Indiana" (§ 24-5-12-10(b)). The registration statement requires a $50 fee (§ 24-5-12-11) and extensive disclosures, including principals' names and dates of birth, all telephone numbers used, all sales scripts, and unexecuted copies of all contracts (§ 24-5-12-12), plus prize and gift details if those are offered (§ 24-5-12-13). An annual update and another $50 are due "On August 1 of each year" (§ 24-5-12-14). The assigned number must appear on solicitation materials "in the following manner: "C.P.D. Reg. No. T.S. __________."" (§ 24-5-12-16), and a seller may not otherwise refer to its compliance (§ 24-5-12-17).

The consequences of noncompliance are significant. Under § 24-5-12-18, a purchaser may cancel any contract with an unregistered seller "by notifying the seller in any manner." Under § 24-5-12-19, if a seller uses a deceptive statement or fails to deliver within four weeks, "the purchaser may void the contract within ninety (90) days from the date of the contract by giving written notice to the seller." Section 24-5-12-20 gives a damaged person "an action for recovery of the person's actual damages, including court costs and attorney's fees," and § 24-5-12-21 authorizes injunctions on any person's petition. Under § 24-5-12-22, "A seller who fails to comply with sections 10 through 16 of this chapter commits a Level 6 felony." Section 24-5-12-23 makes violations deceptive acts enforceable by the Attorney General.

6. Frequency caps, abandonment and opt-out

Indiana has no statutory cap on the number of telephone sales calls to the same consumer, no state call abandonment rate, and no state rule on the time within which an internal do-not-call request must be honored. Those subjects are governed by federal law: the 3 percent abandonment limit in 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200(a)(7) and 16 C.F.R. § 310.4(b)(4); the company-specific do-not-call rules in 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200(d); and the requirement that revocation of consent be honored within 10 business days (47 C.F.R. § 64.1200(a)(10)). The Autodialer Law's live-operator procedure functions as an opt-in rather than an opt-out: a prerecorded message may not be played unless the operator first "obtains the subscriber's consent."

7. Private remedies under the Deceptive Consumer Sales Act

The Deceptive Consumer Sales Act (DCSA) has a provision specific to the TCPA. Section 24-5-0.5-3(b) lists acts that "are deceptive acts," including:

(19) The violation by a supplier of 47 U.S.C. 227, including any rules or regulations issued under 47 U.S.C. 227.

The DCSA private remedy, § 24-5-0.5-4(a), provides that a person relying on "an uncured or incurable deceptive act may bring an action for the damages actually suffered as a consumer as a result of the deceptive act or five hundred dollars ($500), whichever is greater." For a willful deceptive act the court may increase damages up to the greater of "three (3) times the actual damages of the consumer suffering the loss" or "one thousand dollars ($1,000)," and may award reasonable attorney's fees to the prevailing party. Subsection (a) then carves out the state telephone statutes: "This subsection also does not apply to a violation of IC 24-4.7 , IC 24-5-12 , IC 24-5-14 , or IC 24-5-14.5." Subsection (b) permits class actions by persons entitled to sue under subsection (a).

The result is a structural asymmetry. A consumer cannot recover DCSA damages for calling a number on the Indiana list or for an Autodialer Law violation as such, but can plead a supplier's TCPA violation (for example, calling a number on the national registry or making a prerecorded telemarketing call without prior express written consent) as a DCSA deceptive act, in addition to the federal claim. Several conditions apply. The defendant must be a "supplier" in connection with a "consumer transaction." Under § 24-5-0.5-5(a), unless the act is "incurable" (defined in § 24-5-0.5-2 as an act "done by a supplier as part of a scheme, artifice, or device with intent to defraud or mislead"), the consumer must give written notice within the sooner of six months after discovery or one year after the transaction, and the act must have become "uncured," meaning no cure was offered within 30 days or the cure was not performed. Under § 24-5-0.5-5(b), "Any action brought under section 4(a) or 4(b) of this chapter may not be brought more than two (2) years after the occurrence of the deceptive act." No Indiana appellate decision applying § 24-5-0.5-3(b)(19) was located, and how the "supplier" and "consumer transaction" elements apply to unsolicited calls that produce no transaction is unsettled.

8. Attorney General enforcement and penalties

Article 24-4.7. Section 24-4.7-5-1(a) provides that a telephone solicitor, supplier, or caller "who fails to comply with any provision of IC 24-4.7-4 commits a deceptive act that is actionable by the attorney general under this chapter." Persons that directly or indirectly control the violator, and executives of the violator, each commit "a separate deceptive act" (§ 24-4.7-5-1(b), (c)). Remedies under § 24-4.7-5-2(a) include an injunction, a civil penalty of up to $10,000 for the first violation and $25,000 for each later violation, disgorgement, investigative costs, fees and costs; and "For purposes of this subdivision, each telephone call in violation of IC 24-4.7-4-1 is considered a separate violation." A controlling person avoids the civil penalty if it proves by a preponderance that it "(1) did not know; and (2) in the exercise of reasonable care could not have known; of the violation" (§ 24-4.7-5-2(c)). The court may void contracts and order restitution (§ 24-4.7-5-3). Section 24-4.7-5-4 sets the limitation: "An action brought under this chapter may not be brought more than two (2) years after the occurrence of the deceptive act." Venue lies in Marion County (§ 24-4.7-5-5). State contractors that violate the article may be barred from or lose state contracts "even if this article is preempted by federal law" (§ 24-4.7-5-1(d)).

Other chapters. Autodialer Law violations carry the same $10,000 and $25,000 tiers (§ 24-5-14-13). Spoofing carries up to $10,000 per knowing or intentional violation (§ 24-5-14.5-12(b)). Seller registration violations are enforceable under the DCSA (§ 24-5-12-23). Penalties recovered under these chapters are deposited in the consumer protection division telephone solicitation fund (§ 24-4.7-3-6).

How Indiana law differs from federal law

Where Indiana is stricter. The principal differences are in the do-not-call rules. A seller relying on the federal established business relationship exemption to call its former customers who are on the Indiana list will violate § 24-4.7-4-1 unless it is a broadband provider or financial institution, or unless the call concerns an uncompleted existing contract or responds to an express request. Charities using paid telemarketers, which the TCPA's do-not-call rule does not reach, must scrub against the Indiana list. The written contract and payment timing rules have no federal analogue and make many telephone-only closes unenforceable. Liability extends expressly to controlling persons, executives, list sellers, live-transfer partners and anyone giving knowing substantial assistance. The Autodialer Law's consent requirement covers political, survey and informational prerecorded calls that are lawful under federal rules when made to landlines within the federal exemptions.

Where Indiana is looser. The state's own statutes give consumers little in the way of private damages: none for listing violations or Autodialer Law violations, and only actual damages for spoofing and seller registration violations. The Autodialer Law's consent need not be written, and its 10-second disconnect is longer than the federal 5 seconds. Indiana has no abandonment, frequency or internal do-not-call rules of its own.

Where Indiana is the same or incorporates federal law. The spoofing intent standard mirrors the Truth in Caller ID Act; the established business relationship definition for the two eligible industries is the federal one; and the DCSA folds TCPA violations by suppliers into state consumer protection law. Federal rules continue to apply in full to Indiana calls, so compliance requires meeting both regimes.

Notable enforcement and case law

Patriotic Veterans, Inc. v. State of Indiana, No. 11-3265, 736 F.3d 1041 (7th Cir. Nov. 21, 2013). Patriotic Veterans v. Indiana (7th Cir. 2013) The district court held that the TCPA preempted the Autodialer Law as applied to interstate political calls. The Seventh Circuit reversed, reading the TCPA's savings clause, 47 U.S.C. § 227(f)(1), and finding neither express nor implied preemption: "It is clear that the TCPA does not expressly or impliedly preempt the Indiana statute and we so hold." The court remanded for consideration of the First Amendment challenge.

Patriotic Veterans, Inc. v. Zoeller, No. 16-2059 (7th Cir. Jan. 3, 2017). Patriotic Veterans v. Zoeller (7th Cir. 2017) On remand the district court upheld the statute, and the Seventh Circuit affirmed, rejecting the argument that Reed v. Town of Gilbert required invalidation: "We disagree with that contention and conclude that Indiana's law is valid." The court reasoned that the three exemptions in § 24-5-14-5(a) "collectively concern who may be called, not what may be said, and therefore do not establish content discrimination," and distinguished the South Carolina statute struck down in Cahaly v. LaRosa, which drew lines based on the message.

National Coalition of Prayer, Inc. v. Carter, No. 05-3995 (7th Cir. July 28, 2006). National Coalition of Prayer v. Carter (7th Cir. 2006) Charities that wished to fundraise through professional telemarketers challenged the Telephone Privacy Act, including the limitation of the charitable exemption to calls by volunteers and employees. The Seventh Circuit affirmed summary judgment for the State. Applying Rowan v. United States Post Office Department, it concluded "that the Act places the Attorney General of Indiana in a "ministerial" role" and that "the state's interest in protecting residents' right not to endure unwanted speech in their own homes outweighs any First Amendment interests the Plaintiffs possess." A concurring judge agreed with the result on different reasoning.

State v. American Family Voices, Inc., No. 31S00-0803-CV-139 (Ind. Dec. 23, 2008). State v. American Family Voices (Ind. 2008) The trial court dismissed the Attorney General's Autodialer Law complaint because it did not allege consumer transaction calls. The Indiana Supreme Court reversed: "We hold that a complaint filed under this statute is not required to allege that consumer transaction calls are at issue because the law applies to all autodialer calls, not just consumer transaction calls with commercial messages." It reasoned that "no language in the statute exempts non-consumer and non-commercial calls from its reach."

State v. Economic Freedom Fund, No. 07S00-1008-MI-411 (Ind. Dec. 29, 2011). State v. Economic Freedom Fund (Ind. 2011) The trial court had preliminarily enjoined enforcement of the live-operator requirement against a sender of prerecorded political messages. The Indiana Supreme Court reversed: "We hold that the entity's First Amendment claim would likely fail. We also hold there is no reasonable likelihood of success on the merits of the entity's claim that the Autodialer Law's live-operator requirement materially burdens its right to engage in political speech in violation of the state constitution."

Together these decisions treat the Autodialer Law as content neutral, applicable to political and other noncommercial prerecorded calls, and not displaced by the TCPA for interstate calls. The Seventh Circuit upheld it against a First Amendment challenge in Zoeller, while Economic Freedom Fund addressed the state and federal constitutional claims at the preliminary injunction stage, holding only that they were unlikely to succeed.

Recent amendments

• P.L.148-2024, SEC.13 and SEC.14 (H.E.A. 1240 (2024)), effective July 1, 2024. Added § 24-4.7-2-9(b)(3), bringing text, graphic, image, photograph and multimedia messages sent by SMS, MMS, over-the-top messaging or "any other technology or service that transmits messages to a device" within "telephone sales call," and made a conforming change to the telephone solicitation fund provision, § 24-4.7-3-6 (the 2019 text refers to reimbursing "county prosecutors"; the current text refers to "prosecuting attorneys"). The Attorney General's FAQ now states that "If your wireless telephone number is registered on the Do Not Call list, then a telemarketer may not send you solicitation by text."
• P.L.115-2026, SEC.25. Updated the cross-references in the financial services established business relationship exemption, § 24-4.7-1-1(8)(B), from "IC 24-4.4 , IC 24-4.5" (the 2025 text) to "IC 37-1 , IC 37-2." The substance of the exemption is unchanged. The Attorney General's guidance still cites the older references.
• P.L.145-2026, SEC.135. Updated definitional cross-references in the Autodialer Law's prohibited-destination list, § 24-5-14-12, without changing the protected categories.
• 2026 DCSA amendments. Section 24-5-0.5-3 appears in the 2026 Code in three versions (P.L.143-2026, effective until July 1, 2026; P.L.145-2026, effective July 1, 2026; and P.L.100-2026, effective January 1, 2027). Paragraph (b)(19), which makes TCPA violations deceptive acts, appears in the same words in all three.
• Earlier context. P.L.242-2019 amended the exemptions in § 24-4.7-1-1; the Attorney General's FAQ states that "Effective July 1, 2019, the Indiana legislature extended the exemptions to financial institutions, persons licensed by the department of financial institutions under IC 24-4.4, IC 24-4.5, or 750 IAC 9, and communications service providers that offer broadband internet service." P.L.242-2019 also briefly made seller registration universal; P.L.105-2020 narrowed it back to the feature-based definition and added § 24-5-12-0.2. The list resale, live transfer and substantial assistance prohibitions in § 24-4.7-4-7 date from P.L.61-2014 and P.L.227-2015.

Compliance checklist

• Purchase the Indiana do-not-call listing (in addition to the national registry) and scrub every outbound sales call and text campaign against the most current quarterly list; load each new list before the first day of its quarter.
• Do not rely on a federal established business relationship to call listed Indiana numbers unless you are a broadband provider, financial institution, or DFI licensee; otherwise document an express request or an uncompleted existing contract.
• Treat charitable solicitations placed by paid fundraisers as covered telephone sales calls.
• Script an immediate disclosure of the caller's true first and last name, the seller, and the calling company.
• For telephone sales, obtain a signed written contract with the bold statutory notice before charging a card or initiating an electronic funds transfer, unless a 7-day or 10-day cancellation exemption is properly structured.
• Before playing any prerecorded or synthesized voice message to an Indiana number, confirm the subscriber's consent or use a live operator who makes the § 24-5-14-7 disclosures and obtains consent; confine commercial prerecorded calls to 9 a.m. to 8 p.m. and configure a disconnect within 5 seconds to satisfy both federal and state rules.
• Prohibit vendors from selling you listed numbers or live-transferring calls placed in violation of Indiana law, and diligence lead generators, because knowing or consciously avoided substantial assistance is itself a violation.
• Never spoof or block caller ID on solicitation calls; transmit a working number.
• Determine whether any offer uses a prize, time share vacation, office supply pricing, precious metals or other listed feature; if so, register under Ind. Code ch. 24-5-12 before calling and display the C.P.D. registration number.
• Calendar the 2-year limitation and DCSA notice and cure windows when evaluating Indiana claims.

References

• Ind. Code art. 24-4.7 (2026), https://iga.in.gov/ic/2026/Title_24.html
• Ind. Code ch. 24-5-12 (2026), https://iga.in.gov/ic/2026/Title_24.html
• Ind. Code ch. 24-5-14 and ch. 24-5-14.5 (2026), https://iga.in.gov/ic/2026/Title_24.html
• Ind. Code ch. 24-5-0.5 (2026), https://iga.in.gov/ic/2026/Title_24.html
• Ind. Code ch. 24-5-12 (2019 edition), https://iga.in.gov/ic/2019/Title_24.html
• Ind. Code ch. 24-5-12 (2020 edition), https://iga.in.gov/ic/2020/Title_24.html
• Indiana Attorney General, Telephone Solicitors, https://www.in.gov/attorneygeneral/consumer-protection-division/id-theft-prevention/do-not-call/telephone-solicitors/
• Indiana Attorney General, Telephone Solicitor Registration, https://www.in.gov/attorneygeneral/consumer-protection-division/id-theft-prevention/do-not-call/telephone-solicitors/telephone-solicitor-registration/
• Indiana Attorney General, Do Not Call FAQs, https://www.in.gov/attorneygeneral/consumer-protection-division/id-theft-prevention/do-not-call/faqs/
• Indiana Office of Judicial Administration, Legislative Update (H.E.A. 1240, P.L. 148-2024), https://legislativeupdate.courts.in.gov/2024/03/28/criminal-law-issues-12/
• Patriotic Veterans, Inc. v. State of Indiana, No. 11-3265 (7th Cir. 2013), https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-ca7-11-03265/pdf/USCOURTS-ca7-11-03265-0.pdf
• Patriotic Veterans, Inc. v. Zoeller, No. 16-2059 (7th Cir. 2017), https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-ca7-16-02059/pdf/USCOURTS-ca7-16-02059-0.pdf
• National Coalition of Prayer, Inc. v. Carter, No. 05-3995 (7th Cir. 2006), https://storage.courtlistener.com/pdf/2006/07/28/natl_coalition_pray_v._carter_steve.pdf
• State v. American Family Voices, Inc., No. 31S00-0803-CV-139 (Ind. 2008), https://storage.courtlistener.com/pdf/2008/12/23/state_of_indiana_v._american_family_voices_inc._jim_gonzalez_1.pdf
• State v. Economic Freedom Fund, No. 07S00-1008-MI-411 (Ind. 2011), https://storage.courtlistener.com/pdf/2011/12/29/state_of_indiana_v._economic_freedom_fund_freeeats.com_inc._meridian_2.pdf
• 47 U.S.C. § 227, https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/227
• 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200, https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/47/64.1200
• 16 C.F.R. § 310.3, https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/16/310.3
• 16 C.F.R. § 310.4, https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/16/310.4

This page summarizes state law for general informational purposes and is not legal advice. Statutes change; confirm current text with the official source before relying on it.