A BILL FOR AN ACT to amend the Indiana Code concerning human services.
Summary
HB1081 creates the Hoosier Scam Prevention Board within the executive branch of Indiana state government as a continuing board. The board’s core mission is to gather information about existing scam-prevention education and outreach efforts, especially those aimed at seniors, consumers, employers, employees, retailers, financial services companies, and wire transfer companies. It is also tasked with identifying gaps in those efforts and developing model materials, best practices, and recommendations to improve scam prevention and consumer education.
The bill specifies that the board’s work may include guidance on warning signs in retail settings, training materials, community education campaigns, and technology that can help identify scams at the point of sale. Any materials or findings produced by the board must be posted on the attorney general’s website. The board is to be staffed by the division, meet at least annually, and be funded from the state general fund.
Impact
HB1081 would add a new chapter to Indiana Code Title 12, creating a formal state board focused on scam prevention and consumer education. It would not create criminal penalties or directly regulate private conduct, but it would establish a state advisory and coordination structure involving multiple agencies and outside organizations. The bill affects the attorney general’s office, the department of financial institutions, insurance and law enforcement entities, adult protective services, and advocacy groups, while also requiring state funding for board operations and travel reimbursement for members.
Sentiment
Based on the bill text and the absence of recorded committee testimony or votes in the provided materials, the bill appears to be framed positively as a consumer-protection and public-awareness measure. Its emphasis on protecting seniors and other vulnerable Hoosiers from scams suggests broad policy appeal, especially among agencies and organizations focused on aging, fraud prevention, and consumer protection. No opposing viewpoints are documented in the provided context.
Contention
The main potential points of contention are likely to be practical rather than ideological: whether the board duplicates existing anti-fraud efforts, whether its duties are broad enough to produce meaningful results, and whether the state should spend general fund dollars on another continuing board. The bill also concentrates appointment power in the governor and includes a wide mix of public and advocacy representatives, which could raise questions about balance, representation, and effectiveness. However, no specific objections or supporters are identified in the supplied committee or vote history.