HB 1593 makes a series of changes to Indiana’s business-entity filing laws aimed at reducing fraud and improving the accuracy of records maintained by the secretary of state. The bill creates new definitions and filing rules for “contact address” and for entities that operate entirely by telecommunications, allowing such entities to use a contact address in place of a traditional principal office address while requiring disclosure of that address and an email address to the secretary of state. It also adds new requirements for commercial mail receiving agencies (CMRAs), including an intent-to-file statement, disclosure of customer information to the secretary of state, notice when CMRA accounts close, and authority for the secretary of state to bar noncompliant CMRA operators from doing business in Indiana.
The bill also tightens reporting and identity-verification procedures for biennial reports. When one person files a biennial report on behalf of another, the filer must take reasonable steps to verify identity and provide verification information to the secretary of state on request. In addition, the bill clarifies what information must be included in biennial reports and how discrepancies are treated as statements of change. It also updates reinstatement rules for administratively dissolved entities, including a new process for reinstatements sought more than five years after dissolution, which must include an explanation of why reinstatement is requested and the entity’s intended future activities.
HB 1593 amends multiple provisions across Indiana’s business association statutes, including the general entity code, corporation law, nonprofit corporation law, and LLC law, to conform the definition of “principal office” to the new contact-address framework. It also preserves the confidentiality of certain information submitted to the secretary of state, such as CMRA customer data and contact-address disclosures, by excluding that information from the public record. Most provisions take effect January 1, 2026.
The overall sentiment around the bill appears strongly supportive and noncontroversial. It passed the House 94-0, the Senate 49-0, and the House concurred with Senate amendments 91-0, indicating broad bipartisan agreement. The bill’s caption, “Fraud prevention,” and its focus on identity verification, address transparency, and CMRA oversight suggest the legislature viewed it as a technical but important anti-fraud measure.
There is little evidence of major opposition in the available record, but the main policy tension is between fraud prevention and privacy or administrative burden. The bill requires entities and CMRA operators to provide more information to the secretary of state, while also limiting public access to some of that data. The most notable affected parties are businesses filing with the secretary of state, remote or virtual businesses, commercial mail receiving agencies, and entities seeking reinstatement after administrative dissolution.
The bill amends Indiana Code provisions governing business entities, biennial reports, reinstatement after administrative dissolution, and related filing definitions. It creates new obligations for entities using commercial mail receiving agencies or operating without a physical office, requires identity verification for third-party biennial report filers, and authorizes the secretary of state to restrict CMRA operators that violate the new chapter. It also updates cross-references so that corporation, nonprofit corporation, and LLC statutes use the revised “principal office” definition tied to the new contact-address rules.
The bill appears to have received overwhelmingly favorable treatment in both chambers, with unanimous or near-unanimous votes at each recorded stage and no recorded committee controversy. The lack of dissent suggests lawmakers broadly agreed with the bill’s fraud-prevention goals and its technical cleanup of filing rules. The discussion record provided does not show substantive opposition.
No major contention is reflected in the available transcripts or votes, but the bill’s requirements could raise concerns for businesses that rely on CMRAs, remote operations, or third-party filing services because it increases disclosure and verification obligations. The main balancing issue is whether the added anti-fraud safeguards and secretary-of-state oversight justify the extra compliance burden and the collection of nonpublic customer information. Privacy concerns are mitigated by provisions making certain disclosures nonpublic, but that tradeoff is the bill’s most likely point of policy tension.