The New Jersey privacy statute – “Daniel’s Law” – has been in full effect for only a little more than a year now, but New Jersey courts have already been inundated with a wave of lawsuits. In February 2024 alone, more than 140 lawsuits were filed against businesses that publish addresses and related information online.
Here are some Frequently Asked Questions about the law and the litigation that has ensued.
What is “Daniel’s Law”?
Daniel’s Law was enacted in New Jersey in 2020 in response to the murder of Daniel Anderl, son of U.S. District Court Judge Esther Salas. It is believed the gunman targeting Judge Salas found the judge’s home address online. The law is designed to protect the personal information of “Covered Persons” by allowing them to request the removal of their home addresses and unpublished phone numbers from public records.
Who is protected by the law?
“Covered Persons” are defined as active and retired judges, law enforcement officers, child protective investigators, and prosecutors, as well as the immediate family members of these individuals who reside in the same household.
In 2023, the law was amended to allow individuals to assign their claims to third parties, including law firms and software companies. The amendments also authorized courts to award “actual damages, but not less than liquidated damages computed at the rate of $1,000 for each violation,” as well as punitive damages and attorneys’ fees.
Why are we seeing so much litigation?
The 2023 amendments resulted in a surge in lawsuits against businesses, alleging that they have failed to respond to requests to remove Covered Persons’ information.
On November 26, 2024, a federal judge in New Jersey rejected constitutional challenges to Daniel’s Law, and ruled that Covered Persons could assign their right to sue.
Do these third-party plaintiffs have standing to sue?
As the law gains traction, an important question that has emerged is the concept of plaintiffs’ standing to sue.
Article III of the U.S. Constitution limits the jurisdiction of federal courts to actual cases and controversies. To have standing, a plaintiff must demonstrate three things: (1) injury in fact, (2) causation, and (3) redressability (that is, that a court would be capable of granting some sort of relief).
For example, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 2016 that technical violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act required Article III standing and a showing of “concrete injury even in the context of a statutory violation[.]” A challenge to Daniel’s Law litigation is likely to be based on this decision. Defendants would be expected to argue that the plaintiffs must be able to show a specific, personal harm resulting from the disclosure of their contact information. Whether the courts would agree remains to be seen.
