August 26, 2026 by Rebecca Heath
A recent New Jersey Supreme Court decision could determine the future of a law designed to protect the personal information of judges, prosecutors and law enforcement officers.
The court unanimously ruled that public officials covered by Daniel’s Law can pursue claims against data brokers that fail to remove their personal information, even without proving the companies acted negligently, knowingly or recklessly.
The ruling may appear to be a victory for public officials.
But some legal experts say the court’s decision could make it easier to challenge the law as unconstitutional.
The law was enacted by former Gov. Phil Murphy after the 2020 fatal shooting of Daniel Anderl, the son of U.S. District Judge Esther Salas. The gunman, a disgruntled attorney, had found Salas’ address online.
Daniel’s Law requires data brokers to remove the addresses of public officials covered by the law within 10 days of a request or face a $1,000 fine per violation.
The New Jersey Supreme Court’s Aug. 12 decision came as data brokers faced a federal lawsuit brought by Atlas Data Privacy that centers on Daniel’s Law. Atlas is a company that acts on behalf of public officials by sending requests to data brokers asking them to take down public officials’ personal information.
Since Daniel’s Law was passed, tens of thousands of public officials have signed up for Atlas.
The company has filed hundreds of lawsuits alleging data brokers violated Daniel’s Law by failing to remove protected personal information after receiving takedown requests, according to Paul Bond, a partner at Philadelphia-based law firm Holland & Knight.
The data brokers filed motions to dismiss the cases, arguing that Daniel’s Law is unconstitutional. After a federal district court denied the motions, the brokers appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.
The appeals court then asked the New Jersey Supreme Court to clarify what mental state, if any, is required for liability under the law. In August, the court unanimously ruled that Daniel’s Law contains no such requirement.
The case now returns to the Third Circuit for a ruling on the law’s constitutionality.
The company has filed hundreds of lawsuits alleging data brokers violated Daniel’s Law by failing to remove protected personal information after receiving takedown requests, according to Paul Bond, a partner at Philadelphia-based law firm Holland & Knight.
The data brokers filed motions to dismiss the cases, arguing that Daniel’s Law is unconstitutional. After a federal district court denied the motions, the brokers appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.
The appeals court then asked the New Jersey Supreme Court to clarify what mental state, if any, is required for liability under the law. In August, the court unanimously ruled that Daniel’s Law contains no such requirement.
The case now returns to the Third Circuit for a ruling on the law’s constitutionality.
The reason behind the ruling
When Daniel’s Law was first enacted in 2020, it included language that tied liability to what a reasonable person would have believed about the potential risks of disclosing protected information.
The Legislature removed that language in 2022, which, the New Jersey Supreme Court said, indicated that lawmakers intentionally changed the substance of the law.
Ronald Chen, a professor at Rutgers Law School, said the New Jersey Supreme Court essentially interpreted the law to hold that a person or organization can be held legally responsible even without proof of negligence.
He said that interpretation makes it more likely the Third Circuit will rule that the law is unconstitutional.
Although the statute no longer expressly includes an intent requirement, Chen said the justices could have found one through judicial interpretation. The court has done that in other cases, he said, but the justices did not take that approach here.
The New Jersey Supreme Court agreed with a federal court’s warning that a strict liability standard could produce “absurd results” by allowing damages even when a missed deadline was caused by circumstances beyond an entity’s control, such as a natural disaster.
Data brokers welcome the ruling
Bond, who has represented a number of clients who have faced lawsuits and threats of legal action in these cases, said that in some instances, Atlas would file lawsuits after a broker failed to remove the information within the ten-day window, even when compliance was not feasible.
This included demands to remove thousands — or even tens of thousands — of names and contact records by Christmas Eve.
Bond described the state Supreme Court’s ruling as a “correct and certainly a courageous decision.”
“This is a popular law with the best of intentions born out of the tragedy,” Bond said. “Everyone is in favor of protecting judicial officers and law enforcement officers and their family. But on a straight up legal analysis, the statute just doesn’t have a mens rea (an intent requirement).”
What happens next
Attorney David Klein, managing partner at New York law firm Klein Moynihan Turco, said he believes the statute, while well-meaning, was not drafted well, either originally or when it was amended in 2022.
Klein, who has represented clients sued by Atlas, predicts an 80% chance that the Third Circuit will rule the law unconstitutional.
Alternatively, if the Third Circuit rules that the law is constitutional, Klein said violations would continue to be treated effectively as the equivalent of a speeding ticket, in which no intent is required. However, extenuating circumstances could relieve companies of liability in certain cases.
If the law is ruled unconstitutional, it could have a substantial impact on the state’s ability to enforce the statute, depending on the “breadth of the order of the court,” Chen said.
Bond noted that such a ruling would also result in the dismissal of hundreds of cases Atlas has brought.
According to Chen, the Legislature could try amending the law to comply with the court’s ruling, but this could render the law ineffective.
Although the Legislature could reinstate a mental-state requirement, Chen said it would be difficult to argue that a data broker intended to harm a federal judge or their family.
Supporters reject concerns about the law
A spokesperson for the New Jersey Office of the Attorney General, which defended Daniel’s Law in the case, said the office disagrees with the Supreme Court’s ruling.
“While we disagree with the Court’s reading of Daniel’s Law on the specific question before it, we look forward to continuing to defend this critical protection for public servants and their families against the data brokers trying to get it struck down,” the spokesperson said.
Atlas will continue defending Daniel’s Law before the Third Circuit, according to a company spokesperson.
“We respect the Court’s decision and remain confident in the constitutionality of Daniel’s Law,” the spokesperson said. “The importance of protecting public servants and their families from having sensitive personal information exposed continues to be of critical importance. No one should fear that doing their job could put them or their families at risk.”
Could the case reach the U.S. Supreme Court?
Peter Berk, a senior attorney at the law firm Clark Hill, said the Third Circuit could release a decision on the law’s constitutionality quickly. The parties were invited to submit supplemental briefs by Wednesday.
Legal experts say the case has the potential to reach the U.S. Supreme Court.
If Daniel’s Law is struck down, Chen said, the state would likely file a petition with the nation’s highest court, where at least four of the nine justices would have to vote to grant review.
Photo by Marjan Grabowski on Unsplash
