New Jersey Supreme Court Agrees to Weigh In on Daniel’s Law Case
The New Jersey Supreme Court agreed to interpret whether the state’s Daniel’s Law imposes strict liability on data brokers for posting private information online, or if proof of intent is required. The 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals asked for the high court to weigh in at the beginning of September (see 2509040054).
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
Timely, relevant coverage of court proceedings and agency rulings involving tariffs, classification, valuation, origin and antidumping and countervailing duties. Each day, Trade Law Daily subscribers receive a daily headline email, in-depth PDF edition and access to all relevant documents via our trade law source document library and website.
In the order filed Wednesday, the acting clerk said the high court accepted the question, reformulated as “What mental state, if any, is required to establish liability under Daniel's Law?”
Daniel's Law was established after a litigant targeted a federal judge. The disgruntled litigant, who had practiced in the judge's courtroom, obtained the judge's personal information from data broker resources and showed up at her house to assassinate her. Instead, Daniel, the judge’s son, was killed and her husband was wounded (see 2503110077).
The New Jersey law gives certain covered persons, including judges, the ability to ask that their personal information be removed from data broker websites. In 2023, the statute was amended to allow third parties to act on behalf of a covered person to bring a claim.
Since then, the company Atlas Data Privacy has brought many claims against data brokers, a combination of which is the focus of the case at hand. Some privacy lawyers argue the amendment has led to abuse of the measure (see 2504040031). During oral argument in August, a federal judge raised doubts the Communications Decency Act gives data brokers immunity from the law (see 2508110035).
The coalition of data brokers have 30 days from Oct. 16 -- when the order was given -- to submit their brief to the state Supreme Court. Atlas has 21 days after the data brokers file to submit a response.
The state's high court upheld Daniel’s Law in a June 17 decision, rejecting a journalist’s First Amendment challenge to the statute (see 2506180038).
In a separate case at the district level, a federal judge found that Daniel’s Law is inconsistent with a provision of the Fair Credit Reporting Act, but the National Voter Registration Act doesn't preempt it (see 2508250031).
After this summer’s violence against Minnesota lawmakers and their families, other states pushed to pass Daniel’s Law-type protections and cover additional career groups (see 2507030055). In West Virginia, a recent court decision rendered its version of Daniel's Law unconstitutional (see 2508210057), which may impact legislation in other states (see 2508280036).