On April 13, 2023, the Indiana Senate concurred to the Indiana House’s amendments of Senate Bill 5 (“SB 5”) a day after the House returned the bill to the Senate with amendments, and a couple days after the Indiana House unanimously voted to approve SB 5. SB 5 now will head to Governor Eric Holcomb for a final signature, where he will have seven days upon transmission to sign SB 5 into law or veto it. This could make Indiana the seventh U.S. state to enact comprehensive privacy legislation.
Applicability
SB 5 would apply to a person that conducts business in Indiana or produces products or services that are targeted to residents of Indiana and that during a calendar year: (1) controls or processes personal data of at least one hundred thousand (100,000) consumers who are Indiana residents; or (2) controls or processes personal data of at least twenty-five thousand (25,000) consumers who are Indiana residents and derive more than fifty percent (50%) of gross revenue from the sale of personal data.
SB 5’s protections would apply to residents of Indiana who act for a personal, family or household purpose, with express exemption for individuals acting in a commercial or employment context. The bill also contains a number of exemptions, including exceptions for financial institutions, affiliates, and data subject to Title V of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, covered entities and business associates under the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996, nonprofit organizations and institutions of higher education.
Controller Obligations
Similar to the other comprehensive state privacy laws, SB 5 would require controllers to limit the collection of personal data to what is adequate, relevant and reasonably necessary in relation to the purposes for which such data is processed, as disclosed to the consumer. In addition, controllers will need consumer’s consent to process sensitive data or to process personal data for purposes that are neither reasonably necessary for nor compatible with the disclosed purposes for which the personal data is processed. SB 5 also requires controllers to establish, implement and maintain reasonable administrative, technical and physical data security practices to protect the confidentiality, integrity and accessibility of personal data.
Controllers will need to provide consumers with a reasonably accessible, clear, and meaningful privacy notice that includes: (1) the categories of personal data processed by the controller; (2) the purpose for processing personal data; (3) how consumers may exercise their consumer rights under the law, including how a consumer may appeal a controller’s decision with regard to the consumer’s request; (4) the categories of personal data that the controller shares with third parties, if any; and (5) the categories of third parties, if any, with whom the controller shares personal data.
SB 5 also will require controllers to conduct and document a data protection impact assessment for each of the following processing activities involving personal data: (1) the processing of personal data for purposes of targeted advertising; (2) the sale of personal data; (3) the processing of personal data for purposes of profiling, if such profiling presents certain reasonably foreseeable risks; (4) the processing of sensitive data; and (5) any processing activities involving personal data that present a heightened risk of harm to consumers.
Consumer Rights
SB 5 provides consumers with the following rights: (1) to confirm whether or not a controller is processing the consumer’s personal data and to access such personal data; (2) to correct inaccuracies in the consumer’s personal data that the consumer previously provided to a controller; (3) to delete personal data provided by or obtained about a consumer; (4) to obtain either a copy of or a representative summary of the consumer’s personal data that the consumer previously provided to the controller in a portable and readily usable format that allows the consumer to transmit the data or summary to another controller without hindrance; and (5) to opt out of the processing of the consumer’s personal data for purposes of (A) targeted advertising, (B) the sale of personal data, or (C) profiling in furtherance of decisions that produce legal or similarly significant effects concerning the consumer.
Controllers would have 45 days to respond to consumer rights requests, with a potential 45-day extension in certain circumstances.
Enforcement
SB 5 does not contain a private right of action and would be enforced exclusively by the Indiana Attorney General. The bill provides a 30-day cure period for violations where a company must (1) cure a potential violation, and (2) provide the Attorney General with express written statement that the alleged violation has been cured and actions will be taken to ensure no further violations will occur. In the case a violation is not cured, the Attorney General may initiate an action and may seek an injunction to restrain any violations of the law and a civil penalty up to $7,500 for each violation under the law.
Effective Date
If passed as law, SB 5 will take effect on January 1, 2026.
Update: On May 1, 2023, Governor Eric Holcomb signed SB 5 into law, making Indiana the seventh U.S. state to enact comprehensive privacy legislation.
Search
Recent Posts
- Website Use of Third-Party Tracking Software Not Prohibited Under Massachusetts Wiretap Act
- HHS Announces Additional Settlements Following Ransomware Attacks Including First Enforcement Under Risk Analysis Initiative
- Employee Monitoring: Increased Use Draws Increased Scrutiny from Consumer Financial Protection Bureau
Categories
- Behavioral Advertising
- Centre for Information Policy Leadership
- Children’s Privacy
- Cyber Insurance
- Cybersecurity
- Enforcement
- European Union
- Events
- FCRA
- Financial Privacy
- General
- Health Privacy
- Identity Theft
- Information Security
- International
- Marketing
- Multimedia Resources
- Online Privacy
- Security Breach
- U.S. Federal Law
- U.S. State Law
- Workplace Privacy
Tags
- Aaron Simpson
- Accountability
- Adequacy
- Advertisement
- Advertising
- American Privacy Rights Act
- Anna Pateraki
- Anonymization
- Anti-terrorism
- APEC
- Apple Inc.
- Argentina
- Arkansas
- Article 29 Working Party
- Artificial Intelligence
- Australia
- Austria
- Automated Decisionmaking
- Baltimore
- Bankruptcy
- Belgium
- Biden Administration
- Big Data
- Binding Corporate Rules
- Biometric Data
- Blockchain
- Bojana Bellamy
- Brazil
- Brexit
- British Columbia
- Brittany Bacon
- Brussels
- Business Associate Agreement
- BYOD
- California
- CAN-SPAM
- Canada
- Cayman Islands
- CCPA
- CCTV
- Chile
- China
- Chinese Taipei
- Christopher Graham
- CIPA
- Class Action
- Clinical Trial
- Cloud
- Cloud Computing
- CNIL
- Colombia
- Colorado
- Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States
- Commodity Futures Trading Commission
- Compliance
- Computer Fraud and Abuse Act
- Congress
- Connecticut
- Consent
- Consent Order
- Consumer Protection
- Cookies
- COPPA
- Coronavirus/COVID-19
- Council of Europe
- Council of the European Union
- Court of Justice of the European Union
- CPPA
- CPRA
- Credit Monitoring
- Credit Report
- Criminal Law
- Critical Infrastructure
- Croatia
- Cross-Border Data Flow
- Cyber Attack
- Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency
- Data Brokers
- Data Controller
- Data Localization
- Data Privacy Framework
- Data Processor
- Data Protection Act
- Data Protection Authority
- Data Protection Impact Assessment
- Data Transfer
- David Dumont
- David Vladeck
- Delaware
- Denmark
- Department of Commerce
- Department of Health and Human Services
- Department of Homeland Security
- Department of Justice
- Department of the Treasury
- District of Columbia
- Do Not Call
- Do Not Track
- Dobbs
- Dodd-Frank Act
- DPIA
- E-Privacy
- E-Privacy Directive
- Ecuador
- Ed Tech
- Edith Ramirez
- Electronic Communications Privacy Act
- Electronic Privacy Information Center
- Elizabeth Denham
- Employee Monitoring
- Encryption
- ENISA
- EU Data Protection Directive
- EU Member States
- European Commission
- European Data Protection Board
- European Data Protection Supervisor
- European Parliament
- Facial Recognition Technology
- FACTA
- Fair Credit Reporting Act
- Fair Information Practice Principles
- Federal Aviation Administration
- Federal Bureau of Investigation
- Federal Communications Commission
- Federal Data Protection Act
- Federal Trade Commission
- FERC
- FinTech
- Florida
- Food and Drug Administration
- Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act
- France
- Franchise
- Fred Cate
- Freedom of Information Act
- Freedom of Speech
- Fundamental Rights
- GDPR
- Geofencing
- Geolocation
- Georgia
- Germany
- Global Privacy Assembly
- Global Privacy Enforcement Network
- Gramm Leach Bliley Act
- Hacker
- Hawaii
- Health Data
- Health Information
- HIPAA
- HIPPA
- HITECH Act
- Hong Kong
- House of Representatives
- Hungary
- Illinois
- India
- Indiana
- Indonesia
- Information Commissioners Office
- Information Sharing
- Insurance Provider
- Internal Revenue Service
- International Association of Privacy Professionals
- International Commissioners Office
- Internet
- Internet of Things
- IP Address
- Ireland
- Israel
- Italy
- Jacob Kohnstamm
- Japan
- Jason Beach
- Jay Rockefeller
- Jenna Rode
- Jennifer Stoddart
- Jersey
- Jessica Rich
- John Delionado
- John Edwards
- Kentucky
- Korea
- Latin America
- Laura Leonard
- Law Enforcement
- Lawrence Strickling
- Legislation
- Liability
- Lisa Sotto
- Litigation
- Location-Based Services
- London
- Madrid Resolution
- Maine
- Malaysia
- Markus Heyder
- Maryland
- Massachusetts
- Meta
- Mexico
- Microsoft
- Minnesota
- Mobile App
- Mobile Device
- Montana
- Morocco
- MySpace
- Natascha Gerlach
- National Institute of Standards and Technology
- National Labor Relations Board
- National Science and Technology Council
- National Security
- National Security Agency
- National Telecommunications and Information Administration
- Nebraska
- NEDPA
- Netherlands
- Nevada
- New Hampshire
- New Jersey
- New Mexico
- New York
- New Zealand
- Nigeria
- Ninth Circuit
- North Carolina
- Norway
- Obama Administration
- OECD
- Office for Civil Rights
- Office of Foreign Assets Control
- Ohio
- Oklahoma
- Opt-In Consent
- Oregon
- Outsourcing
- Pakistan
- Parental Consent
- Payment Card
- PCI DSS
- Penalty
- Pennsylvania
- Personal Data
- Personal Health Information
- Personal Information
- Personally Identifiable Information
- Peru
- Philippines
- Phyllis Marcus
- Poland
- PRISM
- Privacy By Design
- Privacy Policy
- Privacy Rights
- Privacy Rule
- Privacy Shield
- Protected Health Information
- Ransomware
- Record Retention
- Red Flags Rule
- Regulation
- Rhode Island
- Richard Thomas
- Right to Be Forgotten
- Right to Privacy
- Risk-Based Approach
- Rosemary Jay
- Russia
- Safe Harbor
- Sanctions
- Schrems
- Scott Kimpel
- Securities and Exchange Commission
- Security Rule
- Senate
- Serbia
- Service Provider
- Singapore
- Smart Grid
- Smart Metering
- Social Media
- Social Security Number
- South Africa
- South Carolina
- South Dakota
- South Korea
- Spain
- Spyware
- Standard Contractual Clauses
- State Attorneys General
- Steven Haas
- Stick With Security Series
- Stored Communications Act
- Student Data
- Supreme Court
- Surveillance
- Sweden
- Switzerland
- Taiwan
- Targeted Advertising
- Telecommunications
- Telemarketing
- Telephone Consumer Protection Act
- Tennessee
- Terry McAuliffe
- Texas
- Text Message
- Thailand
- Transparency
- Transportation Security Administration
- Trump Administration
- United Arab Emirates
- United Kingdom
- United States
- Unmanned Aircraft Systems
- Uruguay
- Utah
- Vermont
- Video Privacy Protection Act
- Video Surveillance
- Virginia
- Viviane Reding
- Washington
- Whistleblowing
- Wireless Network
- Wiretap
- ZIP Code