With legislation pending that is designed to eliminate existing loopholes in a New Jersey State privacy law, the entity responsible for shining a light on NJ’s privacy law continues filing lawsuits. Commonly referred to as Daniel’s Law (“NJ Privacy Law”), the New Jersey Privacy Law was enacted to protect home addresses and telephone numbers of, among others, members of law enforcement and the judiciary. As our readers know, however, the NJ Privacy Law has recently become a lightning rod for litigation. Below, we discuss the latest lawsuit and the future of Daniel’s Law.
Latest NJ Privacy Law Litigation Proceeding
In its own words, Atlas Data Privacy Corporation (“Atlas”) provides an online platform, including an email service named AtlasMail, to law enforcement officers, prosecutors, judges, and other “Covered Persons,” as that term is defined under NJ’s Privacy Law. Briefly, Covered Persons under the law who sign up for Atlas’ services then assign their NJ Privacy Law claims to Atlas. In exchange, Atlas, among other things, sends non-disclosure requests to data collection companies on behalf of these Covered Persons requesting that they: (1) cease disclosing home addresses or unpublished home telephone numbers of said persons; and (2) comply with the requests within ten (10) days.
On February 9, 2026, Atlas, on behalf of persons covered under NJ’s Privacy Law, filed a lawsuit against numerous companies, including various LexisNexis entities. The Complaint, which asserts a single NJ Privacy Law claim, alleges that Defendants operate a “unified infrastructure [that] enables [them] to aggregate, disclose, and monetize, the Protected Information of Covered Persons through specific products and services offered . . . .” In its Complaint, Atlas alleges that Defendants maintain databases which disclose the home addresses and unpublished home telephone numbers of thousands of people, including those of Covered Persons. Atlas further alleges that Defendants’ privacy policies acknowledge the fact that they collect and share consumers’ home addresses and telephone numbers. After Defendants allegedly received non-disclosure requests from Atlas, Atlas claims that Defendants continued disclosing the Covered Persons’ information. Because Defendants purportedly failed to comply within 10 days of the receipt of these non-disclosure requests, Atlas asserts that Defendants violated the NJ Privacy Law and seek, among other things: (1) the greater of actual damages, or statutory damages of $1,000 per violation; and (2) punitive damages for alleged willful non-compliance with the law.
The Future of NJ Privacy Law Is Murky
One of the goals of the legislation noted above is to curtail NJ Privacy Law lawsuits, but it remains uncertain whether the proposed legislation ultimately becomes law. In addition, New Jersey’s Supreme Court is expected to issue an opinion regarding the two certified questions that it received from the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit (“Third Circuit”), which is considering constitutionality challenges to NJ’s Privacy Law.
Followers of this blog know that we will continue to stay abreast of all developments surrounding NJ’s Privacy Law. Readers should expect follow-up pieces on the status of NJ Privacy Law legislation and/or after NJ’s Supreme Court issues its opinion.
[View source.]
