IBJNews

State supreme court upholds Indiana robocall law

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The state’s highest court said Thursday that a law that bans some automated calls with recorded messages does not violate the free speech clause of the Indiana Constitution and can be enforced.

But the law remains under scrutiny in a federal lawsuit as well.

The Indiana law 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 consumer’s permission to call.

The General Assembly passed the law 23 years ago but it’s only been enforced against political calls for the past six, prompting a wave of state and federal lawsuits. The Indiana Supreme Court’s decision Thursday essentially puts an end to the state questions.

“This ruling is a big win for Indiana consumers and the state’s strict telephone privacy statute,” said Indiana Attorney General Greg Zoeller. “Over the years we have worked diligently to ensure Hoosiers are not contacted at home with annoying, unsolicited automated calls. Indiana’s auto-dialer law exists to prevent everyday citizens from receiving unwanted messages and we will continue to protect this law against any and all challenges."

The state suit was brought by FreeEats.com, which had made robo-calls during a 2006 Congressional campaign. The company argued that the requirement that a live operator introduce the recorded message was a violation of constitutionally-protected speech.

But the Indiana Supreme Court said in a 4-1 decision the requirement “does not impose a substantial obstacle on FreeEats’s right to engage in political speech,” even if it increases the cost of making the calls.

“A conclusion that a statute violates the state constitution when it increases the economic costs to engage in political expression, without any showing that the right to political expression no longer serves its purpose, would be unsound,” the court said.

The law remains under fire in federal court. In October, a federal judge ruled that the Indiana law violates the federal Telephone Consumer Protection Act, which regulates calls made from one state to another.

The ruling said that federal law would allow Indiana to prohibit the calls completely. But the state law doesn’t do that. Instead, the court said, it regulates the calls by putting restrictions on their use – primarily the requirement that a live operator introduce the call.

Zoeller has appealed the ruling and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit has put the order on hold while it considers the case. That stay – combined with the Indiana Supreme Court’s decision Thursday – means the law can be enforced.

Over the past two years, more than 10,000 complaints have been filed with the attorney general's office about unwanted telemarketing calls. About 72 percent of the complaints are about auto-dialed calls.

Violations of the law can result in fines of up to $5,000 per call.

 

ADVERTISEMENT

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. If what you stated is true, then this article is entirely inaccurate. "State sells bonds" is same as "State borrows money". Supposedly the company will "pay for them". But since we are paying the company, we are still paying for this road with borrowed money, even though the state has $2 billion in the bank.

  2. Andrew hit the nail on the head. AMTRAK provides terrible service and that is why the state has found a contractor to improve the service. More trips, on-time performance, better times, cleanliness and adequate or better restrooms. WI-FI and food service will also be provided. Transit from outlying areas will also be provided. I wouldn't take it the way it is but with the above services and marketing of the service,ridership will improve and more folks will explore Indy and may even want to move here.

  3. They could take the property using eminent domain and save money by not paying the church or building a soccer field and a new driveway. Ctrwd has monthly meetings open to all customers of the district. The meetings are listed and if the customers really cared that much they would show. Ctrwd works hard in every way they can to make sure the customer is put first. Overflows damage the surrounding environment and cost a lot of money every year. There have been many upgrades done through the years to help not send flow to Carmel. Even with the upgrades ctrwd cannot always keep up. I understand how a storage tank could be an eye sore, but has anyone thought to look at other lift stations or storage tanks. Most lift stations are right in the middle of neighborhoods. Some close to schools and soccer fields, and some right in back yards, or at least next to a back yard. We all have to work together to come up with a proper solution. The proposed solution by ctrwd is the best one offered so far.

  4. Fox has comments from several people that seem to have some inside information. I would refer to their website. Changed my whole opionion of this story.

  5. This place is great! I'm piggy backing and saying the Cobb salad is great. But the ribs are awesome. $6.49 for ribs and 2 sides?! They're delicious. If you work downtown, head over there.

ADVERTISEMENT