IBJNews

Court sides with state on auto-dial law but orders review

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

A federal appeals court has ruled that an Indiana law banning most political calls that use automated dialers and recorded messages doesn’t violate federal consumer-protection rules.

But the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals sent a case back to a lower court to decide whether the state law violates the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

“This decision confirms the position we have been advocating for over a decade in every forum where our telephone privacy laws have been challenged,” Attorney General Greg Zoeller said in a prepared statement. “Federal law bearing on telemarketing simply does not preclude broader state prohibitions.”

But he acknowledged that the lower court will now be reviewing the law again – this time in light of constitutional questions.

“My office will continue to enforce and defend the state’s telephone privacy laws, but there is more work ahead to ensure Hoosiers are protected from annoying and intrusive robocalls,” Zoeller said.

At issue is an Indiana law that applies to commercial and non-commercial speech and prohibits automated, pre-recorded calls unless a live operator introduces the message. Schools are exempted, as are organizations that receive a consumers’ permission to call.

The General Assembly passed the law more than 25 years ago but it was not initially enforced against political parties, campaigns or special interest groups. Over the years, those groups used robo-calls for a variety of purposes – such as sending reminders for voters to request absentee ballots or go to the polls, delivering endorsements from prominent politicians, or criticizing opponents – because they are cheaper than calls made by volunteers or paid-professionals.

But in 2006, then-Attorney General Steve Carter announced he would enforce the law in regard to political calls, too. The Indiana Republican and Democratic parties went along with the decision, but outside groups continued to make the calls and Carter moved to fine the offenders.

One of those groups – American Family Voices, which was using the autodialing machines in the 9thCongressional District race between Democrat Baron Hill and Republican Mike Sodrel – sued the state, leading to an Indiana Supreme Court ruling that upheld the law.

Then in 2010, Patriotic Veterans, a political advocacy organization based in Illinois, sued the state in federal court, challenging that the law violated the federal Telephone Consumer Protection Act as well as the free speech clause of the U.S. Constitution.

U.S. Judge William Lawrence of Indiana’s Southern District decided in 2011 that the state law violates the federal Telephone Consumer Protection Act, which regulates calls made from one state to another. He did not then rule on the constitutional question.

The state appealed, leading to the appeals court decision on Thursday.

“The plain language (of federal law) dictates that the Indiana statute is not expressly preempted,” the appeals court said. “This is true whether the Indiana statute is one that merely regulates autodialed interstate calls or prohibits them.”

But the ruling said the district court should now have the opportunity to consider the constitutional question.

ADVERTISEMENT

  • Don't hang up
    Seems to me one way to shut them down is to listen to their call, then send them a bill for your time in answering the call and listening. They don't pay, hello small claims court.

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in IBJ editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ on Facebook:
Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ's Tweets on these topics:
 
Subscribe to IBJ
  1. Of what value is selling alcoholic beverages to State Fair patrons when there are many families with children attending. Is this the message we want to give children attending and participating in the Fair, another venue with alooholic consumption onsite. Is this to promote beer and wine production in the state which are great for the breweries and wineries, but where does this end up 10-15 years from now, lots more drinkers for the alcoholic contents. If these drinks are so important, why not remove the alcohol content and the flavor and drink itself similar to soft drinks would be the novelty, not the alcoholic content and its affects on the drinker. There is no social or material benefit from drinking alcoholic beverages, mostly people want to get slightly or highly drunk.

  2. I did;nt know anyone in Indiana could count- WHY did they NOT SAY just HOW this would be enforced? Because it WON;T! NOW- with that said- BIG BROTHER is ALIVE in this Article-why take any comment if it won't appease YOU PEOPLE- that's NOT American- with EVERYTHING you indicated is NOT said-I can see WHY it say's o Comments- YOU are COMMIES- BIG BROTHER and most likely- voted for Obama!

  3. In Europe there are schools for hairdressing but you don't get a license afterwards but you are required to assist in turkey and Italy its 7 years in japan it's 10 years England 2 so these people who assist know how to do hair their not just anybody and if your an owner and you hire someone with no experience then ur an idiot I've known stylist from different countries with no license but they are professional clean and safe they have no license but they have experience a license doesn't mean anything look at all the bad hairdressers in the world that have fried peoples hair okay but they have a license doesn't make them a professional at their job I think they should get rid of it because stateboard robs stylist and owners and they fine you for the dumbest f***ing things oh ur license isn't displayed 100$ oh ur wearing open toe shoes fine, oh there's ONE HAIR IN UR BRUSH that's a fine it's like really? So I think they need to go or ease up on their regulations because their too strict

  4. Exciting times in Carmel.

  5. Twenty years ago when we moved to Indy I was a stay at home mom and knew not very many people.WIBC was my family and friends for the most part. It was informative, civil, and humerous with Dave the KING. Terri, Jeff, Stever, Big Joe, Matt, Pat and Crumie. I loved them all, and they seemed to love each other. I didn't mind Greg Garrison, but I was not a Rush fan. NOW I can't stand Chicks and all their giggly opinions. Tony Katz is to abrasive that early in the morning(or really any time). I will tune in on Saturday morning for the usual fun and priceless information from Pat and Crumie, mornings it will be 90.1

ADVERTISEMENT