Readers of this blog are not strangers to Daniel’s Law lawsuits filed by Atlas Data Privacy Corporation (“Atlas”). While waiting for the Third Circuit Court of Appeals to decide whether Daniel’s Law is constitutional, a New Jersey federal court recently denied a motion to dismiss a Daniel’s Law lawsuit filed by Atlas against several companies (“Defendant-Companies”). Below, we discuss the decision in detail.
Daniel’s Law Lawsuit Survives Motion to Dismiss
As our readers well know, Daniel’s Law is a New Jersey State law aimed at protecting against the disclosure of the home addresses and/or telephone numbers of judicial and law enforcement officers and other “covered persons,” as defined by the law. Entities that receive takedown requests from authorized persons have 10 days from receipt to cease the disclosure of covered persons’ information.
In response to 42 Daniel’s Law lawsuits filed by Atlas, Defendant-Companies filed a consolidated Motion to Dismiss. In their Motion, Defendant-Companies asserted, among other things, that Atlas did not: (1) plausibly plead that the subject takedown requests were sent by authorized persons or that the requests were received by Defendant-Companies; (2) assert that Defendant-Companies possessed protected information or made the information publicly available after receiving takedown requests; or (3) plead that Defendant-Companies acted negligently. Four of the Defendant-Companies argued that Daniel’s Law does not apply to them because the alleged conduct occurred outside of the State of New Jersey. Although Defendant-Companies asserted additional grounds to dismiss the Daniel’s Law lawsuits, the Court’s decision focused on only two of the bases for dismissal.
Addressing each argument in turn, the Court ruled that the fact that the takedown requests were sent by Atlas, rather than the persons covered under Daniel’s Law, did not invalidate them. As to the failure to plead that Defendant-Companies received the takedown requests, the Court held that the well-established presumption applicable to traditional mail – mail sent is delivered – applies equally to e-mail. The Court explained that Defendant-Companies may rebut this presumption at a later stage of the proceedings, but ruled that alleging that the takedown requests were sent was sufficient at this stage. As for their second argument, the Court held that the Complaint explicitly alleged that Defendant-Companies possessed protected information and made this information publicly available after receiving the takedown requests. Regarding Defendant-Companies’ third argument, the Court held that “[i]t can reasonably be inferred from what plaintiffs plead that [Defendant-Companies] have been negligent in violating Daniel’s Law.” The Court rejected the argument that Daniel’s Law does not apply to conduct occurring outside of New Jersey and likened Daniel’s Law to consumer protection laws designed to protect New Jersey residents. Accordingly, the Court denied Defendant-Companies’ Motion to Dismiss.
Avoiding Daniel’s Law Lawsuits
Until the Third Circuit weighs in on the constitutionality of Daniel’s Law, we should anticipate that these lawsuits will continue to be filed. Companies must comply with takedown requests in a timely fashion, because failing to do so may result in a Daniel’s Law lawsuit. Because Daniel’s Law permits prevailing parties to recover, among other things, up to $1,000 per violation, Daniel’s Law claims are attractive vehicles for Atlas, the primary driver of Daniel’s Law litigation. In the face of such potential damages, it is imperative that companies have procedures in place to comply with Daniel’s Law.
[View source.]
