Home › AI Laws › Indiana › Indianapolis / Marion County
AI Laws in Indianapolis / Marion County, Indiana
As of 2026-07-26, AI Laws USA tracks 18 AI rules that apply to people and businesses in Indianapolis / Marion County, Indiana: 10+ federal protections, 7 Indiana state-level rules, and 1 local Indianapolis / Marion County ordinance. Coverage is strongest on government use of AI, automated decision-making, data-center siting and energy, and AI disclosure and transparency. 7 of these rules are already in effect. Each entry below links to its official source.
Indianapolis / Marion County local AI rules
1 local AI rule specific to Indianapolis / Marion County, Indiana.
-
Proposed / pending Limited protection
SU-47 Special-Use Data Center Zoning District Ordinance
Indianapolis / Marion County · SU-47 Special-Use Data Center Zoning District Ordinance
The Metropolitan Development Commission voted 5-3 to advance to the City-County Council a proposed SU-47 special-use zoning ordinance setting minimum standards for future data centers, including public hearings, noise limits, setbacks, and water-management and operations plans.
Indiana-level AI rules
7 Indiana state rules apply to residents and businesses in Indianapolis / Marion County. Sorted strongest first.
-
In effect Limited protection
State of Indiana Artificial Intelligence Policy
Indiana · Effective 2024-01-01 · State of Indiana Artificial Intelligence Policy
Indiana's state AI policy, issued by the Office of the Chief Data Officer, applies the NIST AI Risk Management Framework and requires agencies to submit an AI Readiness Assessment Questionnaire and report existing AI systems before use.
-
In effect Limited protection
I&M Industrial Power (Large Load) Tariff Settlement Order (C
Indiana Utility Regulatory Commission (Indiana Michigan Power) · Effective 2025-02-19 · I&M Industrial Power (Large Load) Tariff Settlement Order (Cause No. 46097)
The Indiana URC approved a settlement modifying Indiana Michigan Power's Industrial Power Tariff for facilities of at least 70 MW (or 150 MW aggregated), requiring 12-year contracts, minimum monthly demand charges of 80% of contract capacity, exit fees, and collateral so grid-upgrade costs fall on data centers rather than existing ratepayers.
-
In effect Limited protection
Indiana SB 256 (foreign-adversary AI vendor & student rules)
Indiana · Effective 2026-07-01 · Ind. Senate Enrolled Act 256 (2026 Reg. Sess.) / Pub. L. 131-2026, eff. July 1, 2026
Indiana requires new or renewed government contracts for technological products or services — a category that expressly includes artificial intelligence, information systems, and surveillance technology — to include a certification that the contractor and its subcontractors are not 'prohibited persons,' meaning businesses controlled by or domiciled in a designated foreign adversary such as China, Russia, North Korea, or Iran. The law also restricts public colleges from enrolling students from those countries in certain qualifying (including AI) programs until a foreign-influence and research-security review is completed.
-
In effect Moderate protection
Indiana HB 1271 (AI claims downcoding)
Indiana · Effective 2026-07-01 · Ind. HB 1271 (2026), enacted March 4, 2026, eff. July 1, 2026
Indiana's HB 1271, enacted March 4, 2026 and effective July 1, 2026, bars health insurers from using AI tools as the sole basis to 'downcode' a claim (reduce it to a cheaper billing code) without a health professional reviewing the patient's medical record. It also bars health care providers from using AI to submit claims without a review by the provider or a billing professional. Unlike most 2026 health-AI laws, it is not limited to prior authorization.
-
In effect Limited protection
Indiana HB 1271 (no AI-only claim downcoding)
Indiana · Effective 2026-07-01 · Ind. House Enrolled Act 1271 (2026 Reg. Sess.), eff. July 1, 2026
Indiana bars health insurers from relying on an automated process or artificial intelligence as the only reason for downcoding a claim on medical-necessity grounds; a qualified health professional must review the patient's medical record before such a downcode is applied. Health care providers likewise may not use AI to submit a claim without a human reviewing the record. Insurers must also tell providers when AI played a role in an adverse prior-authorization decision or a downcode, and providers keep appeal rights.
-
In effect Limited protection
Indiana Consumer Data Protection Act
Indiana · Effective 2026-01-01 · 2023 Ind. Acts P.L. 94-2023 (SB 5); I.C. 24-15-1 et seq.
Indiana's privacy law, effective January 1, 2026, gives residents rights to access, correct, delete, and port personal data, and to opt out of targeted advertising, data sales, and profiling. Enforced exclusively by the Attorney General with a permanent 30-day cure period.
-
In effect Limited protection
IN NCII Deepfake Law
Indiana · Effective 2024-07-01 · 2024 Ind. Acts (HEA 1047); I.C. 35-45-4-8
Indiana criminalized creating and sharing AI-generated or digitally modified intimate images without consent, expanding its revenge-porn statute. Distribution is a Class A misdemeanor; repeat or aggravated conduct is a Level 6 felony (up to 30 months, $5,000).
Federal AI rules that apply in Indianapolis / Marion County, Indiana
These federal protections apply everywhere in the United States, including Indianapolis / Marion County, Indiana. Showing the 10 strongest and most recent.
-
In effect Stronger protection
Bartz v. Anthropic
N.D. Cal. · Effective 2025-09-05 · Bartz v. Anthropic PBC, No. 3:24-cv-05417 (N.D. Cal.)
Authors Andrea Bartz, Charles Graeber, and Kirk Wallace Johnson sued Anthropic over its use of pirated-book datasets to train Claude. In June 2025 Judge William Alsup ruled that training on lawfully purchased books was fair use. The piracy claims (LibGen ingestion) were not adjudicated to a final ruling — they proceeded toward settlement. In September 2025 Anthropic agreed to a $1.5 billion class settlement, though Judge Alsup denied preliminary approval without prejudice pending additional information on the claims protocol and attorney fees.
-
In effect Stronger protection
Benavides v. Tesla (Autopilot)
S.D. Fla. · Effective 2025-08-01 · Benavides v. Tesla, Inc., No. 1:21-cv-21940 (S.D. Fla. Aug. 1, 2025)
A Florida federal jury found Tesla 33% liable in August 2025 for the 2019 death of Naibel Benavides Leon, in a crash involving Autopilot. The jury awarded $243M ($129M compensatory + $200M punitive); in February 2026 the court denied Tesla's post-trial motions and upheld the verdict in full — the first Autopilot wrongful-death verdict against Tesla.
-
In effect Stronger protection
COPPA + 2025 Rule (childrens data)
United States · Effective 2025-06-23 · 15 U.S.C. §§ 6501–6506; 16 C.F.R. Part 312
COPPA requires online services aimed at children under 13 to get verifiable parental consent before collecting kids' personal data. The 2025 rule update — fully in effect since April 22, 2026 — adds biometric identifiers (like face templates and voiceprints, which matter for AI tools), requires separate parental consent before sharing children's data for targeted advertising, and tightens data retention limits.
-
In effect Stronger protection
TAKE IT DOWN Act
United States · Effective 2025-05-19 · Pub. L. No. 119-12 (S. 146)
Makes it a federal crime to knowingly publish intimate images of someone without consent, including AI-generated deepfakes. Social media and similar platforms must give victims a way to request removal and must take the content (and known copies) down within 48 hours. The platform removal requirement became enforceable May 19, 2026, and the FTC has already begun enforcement.
-
Blocked / in litigation Stronger protection
NetChoice v. Yost (Ohio)
S.D. Ohio · Effective 2025-04-16 · NetChoice, LLC v. Yost, No. 2:24-cv-00047 (S.D. Ohio Apr. 16, 2025)
Ohio's Social Media Parental Notification Act — requiring parental consent for minors' social-media use, including algorithmic feeds — was preliminarily enjoined on February 12, 2024, then permanently enjoined on April 16, 2025 when the district court granted summary judgment for NetChoice. The state appealed to the Sixth Circuit, which vacated the district court's injunction in 2026.
-
In effect Stronger protection
Thaler v. Perlmutter (Copyright)
D.C. Cir. · Effective 2025-03-18 · Thaler v. Perlmutter, 130 F.4th 1039 (D.C. Cir. 2025)
The companion copyright case: Stephen Thaler sought to register a copyright with 'Creativity Machine' (his AI) as the author. The D.C. Circuit affirmed in March 2025 that the Copyright Act's human-authorship requirement is dispositive as a matter of statutory law. AI cannot be a copyright author under U.S. law.
-
In effect Stronger protection
Thomson Reuters v. Ross
D. Del. · Effective 2025-02-11 · Thomson Reuters Enterprise Centre GmbH v. Ross Intelligence, Inc., No. 1:20-cv-00613 (D. Del. Feb. 11, 2025)
Thomson Reuters sued legal-research startup Ross Intelligence in 2020 for copying Westlaw headnotes to train a competing AI legal-research tool. In February 2025, Judge Stephanos Bibas (sitting by designation) granted summary judgment to Thomson Reuters on direct copyright infringement and rejected Ross's fair-use defense — the first definitive U.S. ruling on AI-training fair use. No jury trial occurred: a 2023 opinion had denied summary judgment and pointed toward trial, but the court invited renewed briefing and reversed course in the 2025 ruling.
-
In effect Stronger protection
Louis v. SafeRent
D. Mass. · Effective 2024-11-20 · Louis v. SafeRent Solutions, LLC, No. 1:22-cv-10800 (D. Mass.)
SafeRent agreed in November 2024 to a $2.275M settlement and a five-year ban on using its 'SafeRent Score' for housing-voucher applicants, after a class action alleged its AI tenant-screening tool systematically denied housing to Black and Hispanic Section 8 voucher holders. The first major AI tenant-screening Fair Housing Act settlement.
-
In effect Stronger protection
FTC Impersonation Rule (AI)
United States · Effective 2024-04-01 · 16 C.F.R. Part 461; 89 Fed. Reg. 15017
The FTC's Impersonation Rule lets the agency directly sue scammers who pretend to be a government agency or a real business — including those who use AI-cloned voices or generated images to do so. Civil penalties can reach $53,088 per violation. The FTC also issued a supplemental notice in February 2024 proposing to extend the rule to all individual impersonation.
-
In effect Stronger protection
TCPA (AI voice calls)
United States · Effective 2024-02-08 · 47 U.S.C. § 227; FCC 24-17
Robocalls using AI-cloned or AI-generated voices are treated like other 'artificial voice' calls: callers need your prior express consent, must identify themselves, and must offer opt-outs for telemarketing. You can personally sue violators for $500 to $1,500 per illegal call.
Frequently asked questions about AI laws in Indianapolis / Marion County, Indiana
Are there AI laws in Indianapolis / Marion County, Indiana?
What federal AI rules apply in Indianapolis / Marion County?
Does Indiana have an AI privacy law?
Are deepfakes illegal in Indiana?
Can my employer use AI to screen me for jobs in Indianapolis / Marion County?
How do I report an AI law violation in Indianapolis / Marion County?
Are facial recognition cameras allowed in Indianapolis / Marion County?
Is Indianapolis / Marion County regulated by Indiana's consumer privacy act?
Have we missed an AI rule in Indianapolis / Marion County?
This page is generated from our open civic dataset. If you know of a Indianapolis / Marion County ordinance, county rule, or local enforcement action we should add, email [email protected] or submit a correction. Every entry must include a verifiable source.