ILNews

US Supreme Court asked to take robo-call case

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

An Indiana Supreme Court decision upholding the state’s Autodialer Law is now being challenged after a petition was filed with the nation’s highest court.

Indiana Attorney General Greg Zoeller said his office will defend the statute if the Supreme Court of the United States decides to consider the case, FreeEats.com, Inc. v. State of Indiana, No. 11-1513. FreeEats.com Inc. filed a petition for a writ of certiorari June 12 with the SCOTUS. In December 2011, the Indiana Supreme Court ruled in favor of the state’s ban on robo-calls to Hoosiers and determined the Autodialer Law does not violate free speech. FreeEats.com contested the constitutionality of Indiana’s law after it made almost 400,000 robo-calls to residents during a 2006 congressional campaign. FreeEats.com, a Virginia-based company, wanted to make automated calls on behalf of Economic Freedom Fund and American Family Voices.

“Indiana’s strict telephone privacy law protects consumers from unwanted calls, and that’s a protection the attorney general’s office is committed to defending,” Zoeller said. “It’s clear Hoosiers are receiving more and more unsolicited calls – in part because technology is outpacing the ability to crackdown on violators. Our office will also continue to pursue solutions to help curb the number of unwanted calls consumers are receiving.”

Telemarketers, including those calling on behalf of campaigns and political groups, are allowed to make automated calls to households only if a live operator first obtains the consumer's permission or if the recipient opts-in to receiving such calls.


 


 

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. KUDOS to the Indiana Supreme Court for realizing that some bureacracies need to go to the stake. Recall what RWR said: "No government ever voluntarily reduces itself in size. Government programs, once launched, never disappear. Actually, a government bureau is the nearest thing to eternal life we'll ever see on this earth!" NOW ... what next to this rare and inspiring chopping block? Well, the Commission on Gender and Race (but not religion!?!) is way overdue. And some other Board's could be cut with a positive for State and the reputation of the Indiana judiciary.

  2. During a visit where an informant with police wears audio and video, does the video necessary have to show hand to hand transaction of money and narcotics?

  3. I will agree with that as soon as law schools stop lying to prospective students about salaries and employment opportunities in the legal profession. There is no defense to the fraudulent numbers first year salaries they post to mislead people into going to law school.

  4. The sad thing is that no fish were thrown overboard The "greenhorn" who had never fished before those 5 days was interrogated for over 4 hours by 5 officers until his statement was illicited, "I don't want to go to prison....." The truth is that these fish were measured frozen off shore and thawed on shore. The FWC (state) officer did not know fish shrink, so the only reason that these fish could be bigger was a swap. There is no difference between a 19 1/2 fish or 19 3/4 fish, short fish is short fish, the ticket was written. In addition the FWC officer testified at trial, he does not measure fish in accordance with federal law. There was a document prepared by the FWC expert that said yes, fish shrink and if these had been measured correctly they averaged over 20 inches (offshore frozen). This was a smoke and mirror prosecution.

  5. I love this, Dave! Many congrats to you! We've come a long way from studying for the bar together! :)

ADVERTISEMENT