A BILL FOR AN ACT to amend the Indiana Code concerning trade regulation.
Summary
SB 141 updates Indiana’s do-not-call law in two main ways. First, it changes the state’s consumer telephone solicitation list from a quarterly publication to a monthly publication, requiring the list of Indiana consumers who have requested not to be solicited by telephone to be established, maintained, and published every month instead of every quarter. The bill also makes conforming changes throughout the chapter so that telephone solicitors must use the most current monthly list when determining whether they may place sales calls or share numbers for solicitation purposes.
Second, the bill extends the statute of limitations for certain actions brought under Indiana’s deceptive trade practices/telephone solicitation chapter from two years to five years after the deceptive act occurs. The bill is set to take effect July 1, 2026, and amends provisions in Indiana Code chapter 24-4.7 governing telephone solicitation, consumer opt-out requests, and related enforcement.
Impact
The bill would amend Indiana Code chapter 24-4.7 by accelerating the update cycle for the do-not-call registry and lengthening the time period for bringing certain enforcement actions. Telephone solicitors would need to rely on a monthly rather than quarterly list, which could increase compliance obligations and reduce the chance of calling consumers who have recently opted out. The longer five-year limitations period would give consumers and enforcement authorities more time to pursue claims involving deceptive acts under the chapter, potentially increasing exposure for violators and extending recordkeeping needs for businesses engaged in telemarketing.
Sentiment
No committee transcripts or recorded votes were provided, so there is no direct evidence of debate or formal support/opposition in the available materials. Based on the bill text, the measure appears consumer-protective, aiming to strengthen privacy protections and improve enforcement against unwanted telemarketing and deceptive solicitation practices. The absence of recorded controversy suggests the bill was, at least at introduction, a technical regulatory update rather than a highly partisan measure.
Contention
The most likely points of contention are the increased compliance burden on telephone solicitors and related businesses, who would have to check a more frequently updated list and adjust internal calling practices accordingly. Another possible point of debate is the extension of the limitations period from two to five years, which benefits consumers and enforcers but increases long-term liability for businesses accused of deceptive acts. The bill also preserves and clarifies limits on liability for communications service providers, indicating an effort to avoid sweeping telecom carriers into enforcement actions when they merely transmit communications.