Court Ruling Signals Continued Privacy Litigation Exposure Under NJ’s Daniel’s Law

New Jersey’s Daniel’s Law, which has been used to sue hundreds of data brokers already, has survived a motion for judgment on the pleadings by a data broker challenging the statute’s constitutionality.

The Bottom Line: Daniel’s Law continues to pose a heightened privacy litigation risk to companies that possess the home address or unpublished telephone numbers of New Jersey residents. While the lawsuits brought pursuant to Daniel’s Law thus far have mostly targeted companies engaged in the purchase and sale of data, Daniel’s Law poses a litigation risk to any company that may provide the home address or telephone number of a New Jersey Resident to another person or company. This could include nearly any consumer-facing company, including online retailers, consumer financial institutions, and marketing companies. To decrease risk, companies in possession of data covered by Daniel’s Law should: (1) implement mail and email processes that monitor and flag any “written notices” received pursuant to Daniel’s Law; and (2) establish (and effectuate) procedures for responding to notices within the required ten business days.

Daniel’s Law

The New Jersey Legislature passed Daniel’s Law in November of 2020 in the wake of the attempted assassination of a U.S. federal district court judge. Aimed at establishing data protections for government officials, Daniel’s Law provides that judges, prosecutors, and other law enforcement officers as well as their immediate family members (“covered persons”) that live or work in New Jersey may request in writing that any person, business, or association not disclose or otherwise make available their home addresses and unpublished telephone numbers.

Within ten days of receiving the request, the person, business or association must cease disclosing, soliciting, selling, manufacturing, giving, providing, lending, trading, mailing, delivering, transferring, posting, publishing, distributing, circulating, disseminating, presenting, exhibiting, advertising, offering, or otherwise making available or viewable a covered person’s home address or unpublished telephone number within any searchable list or database regardless of whether a search of such list or database is actually performed.

If a company fails to comply, Daniel’s Law provides for actual damages, and not less than liquidated damages at the rate of $1,000 per violation. A plaintiff may also recover punitive damages for willful or reckless disregard of the law.

Wave of Litigation

To date, a substantial portion of the lawsuits commenced pursuant to Daniel’s Law have been brought by Atlas Data Privacy Corporation (“Atlas”) against so-called “data brokers.” Daniel’s Law contains a relatively unique enforcement mechanism that permits covered persons to assign their claims to a third-party. Tens of thousands of individuals have assigned their claims to Atlas, which has filed hundreds of lawsuits on their behalf.

Constitutional Challenges to Daniel’s Law

On April 22, 2026, the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey denied a Rule 12 motion challenging the statute’s constitutionality. In that case, Sterling Data Co. LLC argued that given its status as a vendor for political campaigns and causes, Daniel’s Law would impair its ability to identify and disclose potential donors and, in turn, infringe on it and its clients’ rights to free speech. The court agreed that Sterling engaged in political speech; however, it held that like the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, Daniel’s Law was content-neutral and therefore subject to a lower level of scrutiny. The court held that although Sterling has a constitutional right to engage in political speech, its First Amendment rights could not “require the unwilling to be subjected to political speech via their phones or their mail under the circumstances presented here.”

Looking Ahead

While New Jersey’s Daniel’s Law has thus far survived constitutional challenges, other states’ versions of the law have not fared as well, such as West Viriginia’s which was has been enjoined. That said, the New Jersey Supreme Court still has not yet issued a decision in a constitutional challenge to the sufficiency of Daniel’s Law’s notice requirement. Should the Court uphold the constitutionality of the notice requirement, more lawsuits will likely be filed pursuant to Daniel’s Law that will target companies other than traditional data brokers.

The team at Womble Bond Dickinson will also be monitoring the renewed push for a federal privacy law, which may ultimately sweep in a renewed push for a federal version of Daniel’s Law, which U.S. Supreme Court Justice John G. Roberts has previously supported.