Our readers may recall a prior piece in which we discussed a New Jersey federal district court (“District Court”) decision denying constitutionality-related challenges to a New Jersey privacy law known as Daniel’s Law. Below, we: (1) briefly explain Daniel’s Law; (2) provide an update on this case following the District Court’s denial of the constitutionality challenges; and (3) discuss future Daniel’s Law lawsuits.
Third Circuit to Consider Constitutionality Challenges to Daniel’s Law
Readers of this blog are aware that Daniel’s Law is a New Jersey State privacy law designed to protect the disclosure of personal information of “covered persons,” as defined under the statute. Daniel’s Law defines a “covered person” as “an active, formerly active, or retired judicial officer, law enforcement officer, or child protective investigator . . . or prosecutor, and any immediate family remember residing in the same household . . . .” With few exceptions, Daniel’s Law requires the recipient of a request to remove a covered person’s personal information to remove the information within ten (10) days of receipt.
After the District Court denied Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss in Atlas Data Privacy Corporation v. MyHeritage, Ltd., it issued an order on December 2, 2024, stating that it believed its decision “involves a controlling question of law as to which there is a substantial ground for difference of opinion and that an immediate appeal from the order may materially advance the ultimate termination of the litigation.” Defendants petitioned to appeal the District Court’s decision to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit (“Circuit Court”), and on March 18, 2025, the Circuit Court granted Defendants’ petition. Defendants have until April 14, 2025 to file their opening brief, and Atlas’s response is due on May 12, 2025.
Since the initial influx of over 150 lawsuits in January and February of 2024, Atlas Data Privacy Corporation (“Atlas”) has continued to file lawsuits against companies for alleged Daniel’s Law violations. Note that Atlas files these lawsuits by utilizing a provision of Daniel’s Law which allows covered persons to assign their claims to third parties.
Compliance with Daniel’s Law and Other State Privacy Laws
Successfully challenging the constitutionality of any statute generally is an uphill battle, and as such, companies should anticipate that the Third Circuit will affirm the District Court’s decision upholding the constitutionality of Daniel’s Law. Until the Third Circuit renders a decision, companies should comply with removal requests in a timely fashion, as failing to do so may result in future lawsuits. Daniel’s Law permits litigants to recover: (1) actual damages or up to $1,000 per violation; (2) attorneys’ fees and costs; and (3) punitive damages, if it can be proven that a company willfully or recklessly disregarded the law. In the face of such potential damages, it is imperative that companies have procedures in place to comply with Daniel’s Law.
[View source.]
