Call center worker and consumer protection.
SB 169 creates a new chapter in the Indiana Code focused on call center worker and consumer protection. It requires certain employers that plan to relocate a call center, or a significant portion of one, from Indiana to a foreign country to give the Indiana secretary of commerce 120 days’ notice before the move. The bill defines covered employers by size and applies the notice requirement to call centers and related back-office/customer service operations meeting specified workforce thresholds.
The bill also directs the Indiana Economic Development Corporation (IEDC) to maintain a list of employers that relocate covered operations abroad. Employers on that list would become ineligible for state grants, loans, and tax credits for a period of five years, and the IEDC would be required to recapture the unamortized value of certain state incentives received after June 30, 2025. The IEDC may waive the penalty if the employer shows that denying the incentive would cause substantial job loss in Indiana, environmental harm, or a significant economic impact to the state.
For state government contracts, the bill requires that call center and customer service work performed for state agencies be done entirely within the United States for contracts entered into or renewed on or after July 1, 2025. It also prohibits contractors from using workers outside the United States for that work, with a later implementation date of July 1, 2027, for all individuals employed by the contractor on such work. The bill states that it does not authorize withholding or denial of employee pay or benefits.
The bill’s impact would be to add new relocation-notice, reporting, and incentive-disqualification rules to Indiana’s economic development and procurement laws, while also restricting offshore performance of state call center services. It would affect employers with large call center or customer service operations, state agencies that contract for those services, and companies receiving or seeking state economic incentives.
Because there are no recorded committee transcripts or votes in the provided materials, the overall sentiment cannot be measured from debate or roll calls. Based on the bill text alone, the measure appears designed to protect Indiana jobs and limit offshoring, while preserving some flexibility through the IEDC waiver provision. Likely points of contention include the cost and enforceability of the incentive penalties, the impact on businesses that relocate operations for economic reasons, and whether the U.S.-only contracting requirement could increase state procurement costs or reduce contractor options.
SB 169 would add IC 5-28-44, creating new notice, reporting, and penalty provisions for employers that relocate large call center or customer service operations from Indiana to a foreign country. It would also amend the state’s economic incentive framework by making such employers temporarily ineligible for grants, loans, and tax credits and by authorizing recapture of certain incentives already received. In addition, it would impose procurement requirements on executive branch agencies and their contractors to keep call center and customer service work for the state within the United States.
No committee discussion or vote history was provided, so there is no recorded legislative sentiment to summarize from debate or roll calls. The bill’s stated purpose and structure suggest a pro-worker, anti-offshoring policy approach, with an emphasis on protecting Indiana jobs and state contracting standards. At the same time, the inclusion of a waiver for significant economic harm indicates an attempt to balance enforcement with business retention concerns.
The main likely points of contention are the bill’s restrictions on employers that move call center operations overseas and the financial penalties tied to state incentives. Businesses may object to the 120-day notice requirement, the five-year ineligibility period, and the recapture of grants, loans, and tax credits, especially if relocation is driven by cost pressures. State agencies and contractors may also raise concerns about the feasibility and cost of requiring all call center and customer service work for the state to be performed entirely within the United States. Supporters would likely emphasize job protection, consumer service continuity, and discouraging offshoring.