« Ind. Decisions - Court of Appeals issues 1 today (and 2 NFP) | Main | Ind. Decisions - No transfer list for week of Feb. 15th, 2008 »

Friday, February 15, 2008

Ind. Decisions - State loses auto-dialer case in trial court

From a press release today by Attorney General Steve Carter:

Indiana Attorney General Steve Carter will appeal a ruling issued this week in Harrison Circuit Court that dismisses a lawsuit to enforce Indiana’s Automated Dialing Law against American Family Voices (AFV).

“Until all appeals are resolved, companies make political robo-calls at their peril,” Carter said. “We will continue to enforce the law to protect citizens from unwanted and illegal practices.”

Carter filed a lawsuit in September, 2006 against AFV and had sought an injunction after receiving complaints about automated calls being made by the organization that did not provide the required live operator to obtain the recipient’s permission to play the pre-recorded message. AFV is one of nine companies the state has filed suit against or reached a court-ordered agreement with for alleged violations of federal or state statutes regulating automated and pre-recorded calls since 2004.

Special Judge Blanton (Orange Circuit Court) issued a ruling from the bench today ordering the dismissal of the case against AFV stating that the automated dialing statute was limited to commercial calls. The attorney general has argued that the statute is broader and applies to both commercial and political calls such as those made by AFV. A final written order is expected to be forthcoming.

Last September, Carter prevailed in a federal lawsuit challenging the enforcement of the automated dialing statute against political calls by FreeEats, one named defendant Carter is suing in Brown County court for also making illegal, prerecorded calls. * * *

Indiana’s “Automatic Dialing Machine” statute [IC 24-5-14-5] specifically states:

Sec. 5. (b) A caller may not use or connect to a telephone line an automatic dialing-announcing device unless:
(1) the subscriber has knowingly or voluntarily requested, consented to, permitted, or authorized receipt of the message; or
(2) the message is immediately preceded by a live operator who obtains the subscriber's consent before the message is delivered.
See ILB entries about the 7th Circuit decision here.

Posted by Marcia Oddi on February 15, 2008 02:10 PM
Posted to Ind. Trial Ct. Decisions