If you send marketing emails, you’re probably already aware of Washington’s Commercial Electronic Mail Act (“CEMA”). Since the Washington Supreme Court’s decision last year in Brown v. Old Navy LLC, plaintiffs’ firms have filed nearly 100 class actions under CEMA, all based on the same theory: the subject line of a marketing email was “false or misleading” because it promised a discount or a free gift, or promoted time-limited offers. At $500 per email in statutory damages, the exposure adds up fast. 

But if you thought Washington’s CEMA was the only law of its kind, think again. A recent amendment to CEMA is reducing statutory penalties to $100 per email and adding a requirement that the sender knew the email was false or misleading (effective June 11, 2026). That makes other states’ CEMA-style laws much more attractive. At the top of the list: Indiana’s.

Meet Indiana Code § 24-5-22-7

Indiana has had its own anti-spam statute on the books for years, called the Indiana Deceptive Commercial Electronic Mail Act (“IDCEMA”).

IDCEMA has all the enticing features of Washington’s CEMA. It prohibits sending a commercial email that “contains false or misleading information in the subject line” to recipients the sender knows or has reason to know are state residents. Ind. Code § 24-5-22-7(b)(3), (c)(2). It provides a private right of action with $500 in statutory damages per email and attorney’s fees. Ind. Code § 24-5-22-10(d). And no proof of actual damages is required.

The plaintiffs’ bar has noticed. Multiple firms are already advertising for Indiana residents who received marketing emails, which is a reliable signal that lawsuits are coming.

Cole v. Ulta: The Test Case

At least one class action under Indiana’s statute has already been filed. In Cole v. Ulta Salon, Cosmetics & Fragrance, Inc., No. 1:25-cv-02521 (S.D. Ind.), six plaintiffs allege that Ulta sent emails with subject lines touting “free gifts” and percentage-off discounts that failed to disclose material conditions buried in the email body. The case was removed to federal court, and the motion to dismiss is now fully briefed and pending.

The early-stage defenses will look familiar, too. Defendants in the CEMA cases have raised CAN-SPAM preemption and the dormant Commerce Clause. For more detail on these defenses and Washington’s CEMA, read our colleagues’ earlier post here. How the Southern District of Indiana handles those same arguments could set an important early precedent outside the Ninth Circuit and signal whether this theory has legs in Indiana and nationwide.

Plaintiffs’ Firms Are Canvassing Different States

What is happening here is no secret. Plaintiffs’ firms are working through state anti-spam statutes one by one, identifying laws with private rights of action and statutory damages, and filing suit. Washington was first; Maryland’s MCEMA has already produced several cases; California’s Business & Professions Code § 17529.5 is in the mix; and Florida’s Electronic Mail Communications Act (FEMCA, F.S.A. § 668.60) saw a class action in April 2026.

There’s no shortage of targets, and Indiana’s law appears to be next on the list.

As we often say, the best defense to any class action is to avoid it entirely. Companies that rely on email marketing should review their claims about urgency, availability, pricing, and “free” offers to make sure the subject line accurately reflects the terms and length of the promotion. The plaintiffs’ bar is not going to run out of states anytime soon.