Daniel’s Law, a New Jersey privacy statute aimed at protecting public officials’ personal information from being disclosed online, has been on the books since 2020. But a slew of amendments made to Daniel’s Law in 2023 that allow individuals covered by the statute to assign their claims to a third party have resulted in an explosion of litigation against a wide range of businesses that maintain or publish home addresses and telephone numbers. While Daniel’s Law faces constitutional challenges in federal court, the onslaught of litigation in state and federal court shows no signs of slowing.
Enacted in 2020, after the attempted assassination of federal Judge Esther Salas left the judge’s son Daniel Anderl dead and her husband critically wounded, Daniel’s Law [1] is intended to protect the release of addresses and other personal information belonging to judges, prosecutors, law enforcement officers, and other public officials (Covered Persons).
Under the statute, upon receipt of a notification by a Covered Person, “any person or business association” shall not “disclose” or “otherwise make available” the individual’s home address or phone number. “Disclose” is defined broadly to include any action to “deliver, transfer, post, publish, distribute, . . . and making available or viewable within a searchable list or database.” Businesses that receive a request must comply within 10 days or else they can be sued for mandatory liquidated damages of $1,000 per claim.
Amended in 2023, Daniel’s Law now allows a Covered Person to assign a Daniel’s Law claim to a third party, including attorney’s acting on behalf of a Covered Person. The 2023 amendments also permitted recovery of attorneys’ fees and costs and punitive damages if it can be proven that a company willfully or recklessly disregarded the law.
Litigation under Daniel’s Law exploded after the 2023 amendments allowed Covered Persons to assign their claims. On December 27, 2023, the newly formed entity Atlas Data Privacy Corp., acting as the assignee of nearly 20,000 Covered Persons, began sending blast email take-down notices to more than 130 businesses. After the 10-day statutory grace period ended, Atlas then brought suit in New Jersey Superior Court, seeking liquidated statutory damages of $1,000 per violation (equal to approximately $20 million in statutory damages, plus interest, fees and costs, and the potential for punitive damages).
So far, defendants include online information services, traditional data brokers, enterprise software companies, real estate websites, and consumer reporting agencies, among others. However, given the breadth of the law and applicable definitions, Atlas and future plaintiffs may seek to apply it to any company that maintains a list or database of individuals with personal addresses or phone numbers.
Currently, more than 60 federal court cases filed by Atlas have been consolidated in the US District Court for the District of New Jersey, where defendants have filed a motion to dismiss on First Amendment grounds. The balance of the cases remains in NJ Superior Court and are in various stages of litigation.
In addition to Atlas’s litigation, a New Jersey appellate court recently ruled that Daniel’s Law properly prevented a journalist from publishing the personal address of a former city employee in New Brunswick in Kratovil v. City of New Brunswick and Anthony A. Caputo. [2] There, the plaintiff sought to publish the personal address of the city’s former director of public safety to prove the former director was in violation of the state’s residency requirement. The city sent the plaintiff a cease and desist letter, demanding that he refrain from publishing the information pursuant to Daniel’s Law. The plaintiff sought a restraining order, arguing the city’s cease and desist demand violated his First Amendment rights.
The trial court dismissed the plaintiff’s claim. On appeal, the Appellate Division held the plaintiff’s First Amendment rights had not been compromised by the city's demand because the specific address was not a matter of public concern and because the safety of judges was a compelling state interest. The case is now before the New Jersey Supreme Court, and depending on the court’s decision, could shape future litigation under Daniel’s Law.
Daniel’s Law has broad implications for any business or entity that maintains or receives personal information of Covered Persons. While the federal litigation should result in important interpretative guidance, at this time, virtually any entity that interacts with New Jersey residents is at risk of being sued under the law for noncompliance. Therefore, businesses should ensure that they monitor their inboxes for take-down requests and implement policies and procedures for responding to such requests in the 10-day window.
Our lawyers stand ready to advise businesses on Daniel’s Law, assisting them in ensuring their practices comply with these ever-evolving amendments and requirements.
If you have any questions or would like more information on the issues discussed in this LawFlash, please contact any of the following: