On April 11, the Indiana legislature passed comprehensive state privacy legislation in the form of S.B. 5. S.B. 5 shares similarities with the state privacy laws in Virginia, Connecticut, Colorado, Utah, and most recently Iowa.  If signed into law, S.B. 5 would take effect on January 1, 2026.  This blog post summarizes the statute’s key takeaways.

  • Scope:  S.B. 5 would apply to controllers and processors that conduct business in Indiana or produce products or services that are targeted to Indiana residents and that during a calendar year either: (1) control or process personal data of at least 100,000 consumers or (2) control or process data of at least 25,000 Indiana consumers and derive more than 50% of their gross revenue from selling personal data.
  • Consumer Rights:  Consumers have rights to: (1) confirm whether a controller is processing their personal data and access such personal data; (2) correct the personal data that the consumer previously provided to the controller; (3) delete personal data; (4) obtain a portable copy or representative summary of the consumer’s personal data and (5) opt-out of processing for purposes of (a) targeted advertising (defined as displaying ads that are selected based on the consumer’s activities over time and across nonaffiliated websites), (b) the sale of personal data (defined as the exchange of personal data for monetary consideration); or (c) profiling in furtherance of decisions that produce legal or similarly significant effects concerning the consumer.  Notably, S.B. 5 limits its definition of “profiling” to “solely automated processing.”  
  • Sensitive Data:  Controllers must obtain consent before processing a consumer’s sensitive data.  Sensitive data is defined as personal data revealing racial or ethnic origin, religious beliefs, a mental or physical health diagnosis made by a health care provider, sexual orientation, or citizenship or immigration status; genetic or biometric data processed to identify individuals; personal data collected from a known child; and precise geolocation data (i.e., identifies a consumer within a radius of 1,750 ft.).  
  • Controller & Processor Contracts:  S.B. 5 uses the terms “controller” and “processor.”  Under S.B 5, processors must assist controllers in meeting their obligations, including responding to consumer requests and conducting data protection impact assessments (“DPIAs”).  S.B. 5 would require certain contractual terms between controllers and processors, including those requiring the processor to maintain a duty of confidentiality.
  • DPIAs:  S.B. 5 would require controllers to conduct DPIAs of processing activities that involve targeted advertising, the sale of personal data, profiling (in limited circumstances), sensitive data, or otherwise present a heightened risk of harm to consumers.  S.B. 5’s DPIA requirement does not apply retroactively.  
  • Enforcement & Cure:  The Indiana Attorney General has the exclusive authority to enforce S.B. 5.  Further, the statute would provide controllers and processors with a 30-day cure period, which will not expire.
Print:
Email this postTweet this postLike this postShare this post on LinkedIn
Photo of Libbie Canter Libbie Canter

Libbie Canter represents a wide variety of multinational companies on privacy, cyber security, and technology transaction issues, including helping clients with their most complex privacy challenges and the development of governance frameworks and processes to comply with global privacy laws. She routinely supports…

Libbie Canter represents a wide variety of multinational companies on privacy, cyber security, and technology transaction issues, including helping clients with their most complex privacy challenges and the development of governance frameworks and processes to comply with global privacy laws. She routinely supports clients on their efforts to launch new products and services involving emerging technologies, and she has assisted dozens of clients with their efforts to prepare for and comply with federal and state privacy laws, including the California Consumer Privacy Act and California Privacy Rights Act.

Libbie represents clients across industries, but she also has deep expertise in advising clients in highly-regulated sectors, including financial services and digital health companies. She counsels these companies — and their technology and advertising partners — on how to address legacy regulatory issues and the cutting edge issues that have emerged with industry innovations and data collaborations.

As part of her practice, she also regularly represents clients in strategic transactions involving personal data and cybersecurity risk. She advises companies from all sectors on compliance with laws governing the handling of health-related data. Libbie is recognized as an Up and Coming lawyer in Chambers USA, Privacy & Data Security: Healthcare. Chambers USA notes, Libbie is “incredibly sharp and really thorough. She can do the nitty-gritty, in-the-weeds legal work incredibly well but she also can think of a bigger-picture business context and help to think through practical solutions.”

Photo of Lindsey Tonsager Lindsey Tonsager

Lindsey Tonsager co-chairs the firm’s global Data Privacy and Cybersecurity practice. She advises clients in their strategic and proactive engagement with the Federal Trade Commission, the U.S. Congress, the California Privacy Protection Agency, and state attorneys general on proposed changes to data protection…

Lindsey Tonsager co-chairs the firm’s global Data Privacy and Cybersecurity practice. She advises clients in their strategic and proactive engagement with the Federal Trade Commission, the U.S. Congress, the California Privacy Protection Agency, and state attorneys general on proposed changes to data protection laws, and regularly represents clients in responding to investigations and enforcement actions involving their privacy and information security practices.

Lindsey’s practice focuses on helping clients launch new products and services that implicate the laws governing the use of artificial intelligence, data processing for connected devices, biometrics, online advertising, endorsements and testimonials in advertising and social media, the collection of personal information from children and students online, e-mail marketing, disclosures of video viewing information, and new technologies.

Lindsey also assesses privacy and data security risks in complex corporate transactions where personal data is a critical asset or data processing risks are otherwise material. In light of a dynamic regulatory environment where new state, federal, and international data protection laws are always on the horizon and enforcement priorities are shifting, she focuses on designing risk-based, global privacy programs for clients that can keep pace with evolving legal requirements and efficiently leverage the clients’ existing privacy policies and practices. She conducts data protection assessments to benchmark against legal requirements and industry trends and proposes practical risk mitigation measures.

Photo of Jayne Ponder Jayne Ponder

Jayne Ponder counsels national and multinational companies across industries on data privacy, cybersecurity, and emerging technologies, including Artificial Intelligence and Internet of Things.

In particular, Jayne advises clients on compliance with federal, state, and global privacy frameworks, and counsels clients on navigating the…

Jayne Ponder counsels national and multinational companies across industries on data privacy, cybersecurity, and emerging technologies, including Artificial Intelligence and Internet of Things.

In particular, Jayne advises clients on compliance with federal, state, and global privacy frameworks, and counsels clients on navigating the rapidly evolving legal landscape. Her practice includes partnering with clients on the design of new products and services, drafting and negotiating privacy terms with vendors and third parties, developing privacy notices and consent forms, and helping clients design governance programs for the development and deployment of Artificial Intelligence and Internet of Things technologies.

Jayne routinely represents clients in privacy and consumer protection enforcement actions brought by the Federal Trade Commission and state attorneys general, including related to data privacy and advertising topics. She also helps clients articulate their perspectives through the rulemaking processes led by state regulators and privacy agencies.

As part of her practice, Jayne advises companies on cybersecurity incident preparedness and response, including by drafting, revising, and testing incident response plans, conducting cybersecurity gap assessments, engaging vendors, and analyzing obligations under breach notification laws following an incident.

Photo of Olivia Vega Olivia Vega

Olivia Vega provides strategic advice to global companies on a broad range of privacy, health care, and technology issues, including in technology transactions, mergers and acquisitions, and regulatory compliance. Within her practice, Olivia counsels clients on navigating the complex web of federal and…

Olivia Vega provides strategic advice to global companies on a broad range of privacy, health care, and technology issues, including in technology transactions, mergers and acquisitions, and regulatory compliance. Within her practice, Olivia counsels clients on navigating the complex web of federal and state privacy and data security laws and regulations, including on topics such as HIPAA, California’s Confidentiality of Medical Information Act, and the California Consumer Privacy Act. In addition, Olivia maintains an active pro bono practice.

Photo of Jemie Fofanah Jemie Fofanah

Jemie Fofanah is an associate in the firm’s Washington, DC office. She is a member of the Privacy and Cybersecurity Practice Group and the Technology and Communication Regulatory Practice Group. She also maintains an active pro bono practice with a focus on criminal…

Jemie Fofanah is an associate in the firm’s Washington, DC office. She is a member of the Privacy and Cybersecurity Practice Group and the Technology and Communication Regulatory Practice Group. She also maintains an active pro bono practice with a focus on criminal defense and family law.