AI Laws in Indianapolis, Indiana
AI Laws USA tracks 26 AI rules that apply to people and businesses in Indianapolis, Indiana: 10+ federal rules, 7 Indiana state-level rules, and 9 local Indianapolis/county ordinances. Coverage is strongest on data-center siting and energy, government use of AI, automated decision-making, and consumer data privacy. 11 of these rules are already in effect. Each entry below links to its official source.
Indianapolis local AI rules (and Marion County)
9 local AI rules specific to Indianapolis, Indiana or Marion County.
-
Proposed / pending
Indianapolis temporary data center moratorium (committee advanced July 13, 2026)
Indianapolis/Marion County · Indianapolis-Marion County City-County Council Metropolitan and Economic Development Committee, 10-3 vote July 13, 2026, recommending temporary data center moratorium through Dec. 31, 2027
The Indianapolis City-County Council's Metropolitan and Economic Development Committee voted 10-3 on July 13, 2026 to advance a temporary moratorium on approving new data centers through December 31, 2027. Mayor Joe Hogsett publicly endorsed the moratorium after the committee vote. The full City-County Council is scheduled to vote on August 10, 2026. If enacted, the moratorium would not apply retroactively to projects that have already secured municipal zoning clearances. This is a binding ordinance proposal — separate from the non-binding pause resolution (Proposal 158) passed in May 2026, and from the parallel permanent SU-47 special use district zoning amendment also advancing through the council.
-
Proposed / pending
Indianapolis MDC data center special zoning proposal (July 2026)
Indianapolis, IN · Indianapolis MDC 5-3 vote (July 1, 2026) recommending data center special zoning district ordinance; City-County Council final vote pending
Indianapolis's Metropolitan Development Commission voted 5-3 on July 1, 2026 to recommend creating a new special zoning class for data centers in Marion County. The proposed ordinance would regulate where data centers can be built and how close they can sit to residences, set noise limits (the MDC debated returning to 65 dB from a proposed 55 dB), and require water management plans, annual reporting on water use and power consumption, noise compliance studies, and decommissioning/environmental-remediation plans. A motion to remove the decommissioning-plan requirement failed 6-2. The ordinance now heads to the full City-County Council for final approval, expected in August 2026.
-
In effect Strength: moderate
Indianapolis data center moratorium (Council 23-1 Aug 10; MDC 6-0 Aug 19; effective)
Indianapolis, IN · Effective August 19, 2026 · Indianapolis-Marion County City-County Council, Zoning Ordinance Amendment 2026-AO-001 (committee-approved 10-3, August 3, 2026; full council 23-1 vote August 10, 2026; MDC 6-0 final approval August 19, 2026; effective August 19, 2026 through December 31, 2027)
The Metropolitan Economic Development Committee of the Indianapolis City-County Council voted 10-3 on August 3, 2026 to recommend approval of a Zoning Ordinance Amendment imposing a moratorium on data centers through at least December 31, 2027. The committee vote fell along party lines: all 10 yes votes were Democrats and all 3 no votes were Republicans. The full 29-member City-County Council is scheduled to vote on August 10, 2026. Council President Maggie Lewis announced support for the moratorium after months of community pressure from residents and environmental groups, and Mayor Joe Hogsett also supports the measure. The moratorium would pause acceptance and processing of land-use applications, site plans, and building permits for data centers within Indianapolis-Marion County.
-
In effect Strength: limited
Indianapolis-Marion County data-center pause resolution
Indianapolis/Marion County · Effective May 4, 2026 · Indianapolis City-County Council data-center pause resolution (May 4, 2026)
Special resolution unanimously approved by the Indianapolis City-County Council calling on the city's Metropolitan Development Commission to temporarily stop approving new data centers. Accompanied by ongoing drafting of a zoning ordinance setting a maximum 65 dB noise limit at property lines, restrictions on backup-generator testing, required physical buffers (berms, fencing, tree lines), and disclosure of power/water capacity and infrastructure connections.
-
Enacted (not yet in effect) Strength: limited
Indianapolis Data Center Pause Resolution
Indianapolis, IN · Indianapolis-Marion County City-County Council, Proposal No. 158 (2026)
In May 2026 the Indianapolis City-County Council unanimously passed a resolution urging the Metropolitan Development Commission to stop approving new data centers until May 7, 2027 or until permanent regulations pass. Because it is a resolution rather than a binding ordinance, it is a soft pause; a companion draft ordinance would create a special-use zoning district with noise and setback requirements.
-
Proposed / pending
Indianapolis DC Zoning
Indianapolis, IN · Data Center Dynamics, June 2026
Indianapolis's City-County Council introduced zoning standards requiring conditional approval, setbacks from residential zones, and noise studies for new data centers.
-
In effect Strength: moderate
Indianapolis Metro PD FR Prohibition
Indianapolis, IN · Effective April 1, 2023 · IMPD Gen. Order 2944094, Biometric Technology / Facial Recognition (available at public.powerdms.com/INDYMETRO/documents/2944094)
Indianapolis Metropolitan Police Department general order prohibiting use of facial recognition technology by IMPD personnel without express written authorization and case predicate.
-
Proposed / pending
Indianapolis SU-47 District (draft)
Indianapolis, IN · Indianapolis-Marion County, draft SU-47 ordinance (pending, 2026)
Indianapolis is writing a new rule book for data centers: a draft ordinance would create a special zoning district (SU-47) just for data centers, forcing every project through a rezoning with public hearings, a 65-decibel property-line noise cap, 200-foot separation from residential districts, and required water-management and decommissioning plans.
-
In effect Strength: moderate
City of Indianapolis & Marion County IN Generative AI Use Policy
Marion County, IN · Effective July 22, 2025 · Indianapolis-Marion County Mayor / Administrator AI Policy (2025) (2025-07-22)
Indianapolis (Unigov) / Marion County adopted citywide and countywide generative AI use policy: prohibits PII/PHI/CJIS in public LLMs, requires CIO approval for AI procurement, mandates inventory, and requires impact review before AI-driven decisions in resident services.
Indiana-level AI rules
7 Indiana state rules apply to residents and businesses in Indianapolis. Sorted strongest first.
-
In effect Strength: limited
I&M Industrial Power (Large Load) Tariff Settlement Order (C
Indiana Utility Regulatory Commission (Indiana Michigan Power) · Effective February 19, 2025 · 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 Strength: limited
State of Indiana Artificial Intelligence Policy
Indiana · Effective January 1, 2024 · 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 Strength: limited
Indiana Consumer Data Protection Act
Indiana · Effective January 1, 2026 · 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 Strength: limited
Indiana SB 256 (foreign-adversary AI vendor & student rules)
Indiana · Effective July 1, 2026 · 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 Strength: limited
Indiana HB 1271 (no AI-only claim downcoding)
Indiana · Effective July 1, 2026 · 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; an employee or contractor of the insurer 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 it. Insurers must disclose, in an easy-to-find and readable way, when AI is used to deny a prior-authorization request or to downcode a claim, must explain each downcode, and must give providers at least 180 days to appeal. The rules took effect July 1, 2026 and do not apply to Medicaid.
-
In effect Strength: limited
IN NCII Deepfake Law
Indiana · Effective July 1, 2024 · 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, Indiana
These federal rules apply everywhere in the United States, including Indianapolis, Indiana. Showing the 10 strongest and most recent.
-
In effect Strength: stronger
TVA data center capacity commitment charge (2026)
Tennessee Valley Authority · Effective October 1, 2026 · Tenn. Valley Auth. Bd. of Dirs. — Data Center Capacity Commitment Charge (approved Aug. 20, 2026; eff. Oct. 1, 2026)
The Tennessee Valley Authority's Board of Directors approved a separate, higher wholesale rate for data centers on August 20, 2026, effective October 1. New or expanding data center loads above 5 megawatts now fall under a Capacity Commitment Charge attached to TVA's data center rate schedules, designed to recover the incremental capacity costs those customers impose on the system. The headline figures are substantial: upfront capacity commitment charges of roughly $1.5 million per megawatt, payable over three to five years, and an all-in average billing increase for data center customers of about 10%, phased in across three consecutive fiscal years. The stated purpose is to keep residential rates low while still serving growing data center demand. TVA matters here out of proportion to a single utility. It is a federal corporate agency supplying power across seven states, so this is not a state rate case but a regional cost-allocation decision reaching a large share of the Southeast — and TVA is among the first large US utilities to adopt a tariff aimed specifically at AI-driven load. Where most 2026 measures in this dataset restrict where data centers may be built, this one changes what they pay to run.
-
In effect Strength: stronger
Bartz v. Anthropic
N.D. Cal. · Effective September 5, 2025 · 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) proceeded toward settlement; in September 2025 Anthropic agreed to a $1.5 billion class settlement covering ~500,000 works. Judge Alsup granted preliminary approval September 25, 2025 and final approval July 20, 2026. The appeal period runs through August 19, 2026; class members will not receive payments until at least end of 2026.
-
In effect Strength: stronger
COPPA + 2025 Rule (childrens data)
United States · Effective June 23, 2025 · 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 Strength: stronger
TAKE IT DOWN Act
United States · Effective May 19, 2025 · 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
NetChoice v. Yost (Ohio)
S.D. Ohio · Effective April 16, 2025 · 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 Strength: stronger
Thaler v. Perlmutter (Copyright)
D.C. Cir. · Effective March 18, 2025 · 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 Strength: stronger
Louis v. SafeRent
D. Mass. · Effective November 20, 2024 · 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 Strength: stronger
FTC Impersonation Rule (AI)
United States · Effective April 1, 2024 · 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 Strength: stronger
FTC v. Rite Aid
FTC · Effective February 26, 2024 · FTC v. Rite Aid Corp., No. 2:23-cv-05023 (E.D. Pa. Dec. 19, 2023)
The FTC banned Rite Aid from using facial-recognition technology in its stores for five years after finding the pharmacy chain's FRT system falsely tagged customers — disproportionately women and people of color — as shoplifters, leading to wrongful detentions and humiliations.
-
In effect Strength: stronger
TCPA (AI voice calls)
United States · Effective February 8, 2024 · 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, Indiana
Are there AI laws in Indianapolis, Indiana?
What federal AI rules apply in Indianapolis?
Does Indiana have an AI privacy law?
Are deepfakes illegal in Indiana?
Can my employer use AI to screen me for jobs in Indianapolis?
How do I report an AI law violation in Indianapolis?
Are facial recognition cameras allowed in Indianapolis?
Is Indianapolis regulated by Indiana's consumer privacy act?
Have we missed an AI rule in Indianapolis?
This page is generated from our open civic dataset. If you know of a Indianapolis ordinance, county rule, or local enforcement action we should add, email feedback@ailawsusa.com or submit a correction. Every entry must include a verifiable source.