AI Laws in Indianapolis / Marion County, Indiana

Indianapolis / Marion County local AI rules

1 local AI rule specific to Indianapolis / Marion County, Indiana.

1. Proposed / pending

   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.

   View full entry · News report

Indiana-level AI rules

7 Indiana state rules apply to residents and businesses in Indianapolis / Marion County. Sorted strongest first.

1. In effect Strength: moderate

   Indiana data center local revenue share, IC 6-2.5-15-15.5 (2026)

   Indiana · Effective June 30, 2026 · Ind. Code § 6-2.5-15-15.5, enacted via HEA 1210 (2026) — data center local revenue share, up to 1% quarterly, for periods after June 30, 2026

   Indiana grants data centers long-dated sales tax exemptions — 25- or 50-year certificates under IC 6-2.5-15, available at a $50 million minimum investment, alongside property tax abatement under IC 6-1.1-10-44 for investments of $25 million or more. IC 6-2.5-15-15.5 attaches a condition to that generosity: a LOCAL REVENUE SHARE of UP TO 1%, PAID QUARTERLY, for periods after JUNE 30, 2026. The structural problem it addresses runs through this whole dataset. A state grants the exemption and captures the announcement; the host community absorbs the consequences — the grid load, the water draw, the truck traffic, the noise, the substation, the foregone property tax base that would have funded its schools. The Marion County, Florida commissioner who objected that a 49-megawatt facility is the equivalent of 10,000 to 15,000 households was making a version of this point, as was the Cumberland, Rhode Island sponsor who noted a large data center can use as much water in a day as her entire town. A local revenue share does not reduce any of those burdens. What it does is stop the fiscal benefit accruing entirely to the level of government that does not bear them. This is worth recording as a protection of a specific and limited kind: it is COMPENSATORY rather than preventive. It does not restrict siting, cap size, limit water or require disclosure. A community that does not want a data center gets no help from it. A community that is getting one anyway gets a revenue stream it would otherwise have been denied by the very exemption that attracted the project. Indiana's local response has been substantial regardless — nearly one-third of Indiana counties have adopted restrictions, moratoriums, ordinances or bans.

   View full entry · Legal analysis

2. 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.

   View full entry · News report

3. 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.

   View full entry · Agency page

4. 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.

   View full entry · Bill text

5. 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.

   View full entry · Bill text

6. 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.

   View full entry · Bill text

7. 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).

   View full entry · Agency page

Full Indiana jurisdiction page

Federal AI rules that apply in Indianapolis / Marion County, Indiana

These federal rules apply everywhere in the United States, including Indianapolis / Marion County, Indiana. Showing the 10 strongest and most recent.

1. 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.

   View full entry · News report

2. 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.

   View full entry · Court record

3. 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.

   View full entry · Agency page

4. 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.

   View full entry · Agency page

5. 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.

   View full entry · Court record

6. 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.

   View full entry · Court record

7. 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.

   View full entry · Court record

8. 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.

   View full entry · Agency page

9. 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.

   View full entry · Agency page

10. 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.

    View full entry · Agency page

See all federal AI rules

Frequently asked questions about AI laws in Indianapolis / Marion County, Indiana

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 feedback@ailawsusa.com or submit a correction. Every entry must include a verifiable source.