Background
Atlas Data Privacy Corporation provides a service through which people protected by Daniel’s Law can notify entities to stop disclosing their home addresses and unpublished telephone numbers. Atlas, several police and correctional officers, and thousands of covered persons whose claims were assigned to Atlas alleged that data brokers and other businesses continued disclosing protected information after receiving notices to stop.
The defendants moved to dismiss, arguing that Daniel’s Law was facially unconstitutional because it imposed liability affecting speech without requiring a culpable mental state. A federal district court denied the motions after construing the statute to require negligence. On appeal, the Third Circuit asked the New Jersey Supreme Court what mental state, if any, N.J.S.A. 56:8-166.1 requires. The state court reformulated the question and accepted it for review.
The Court’s Holding
The New Jersey Supreme Court unanimously held that Daniel’s Law contains no mental-state requirement for an award of actual damages under N.J.S.A. 56:8-166.1(c)(1). The statute provides that an entity violating the nondisclosure requirement “shall be liable” and that a court “shall award” actual damages of at least $1,000 per violation, without conditioning that relief on negligence, knowledge, recklessness, or intent.
The Court found the omission deliberate because the next subsection expressly requires “willful or reckless disregard of the law” for punitive damages, while other provisions of Daniel’s Law likewise specify mental states when intended. The legislative history reinforced that conclusion: the Legislature removed “reasonable person” language resembling a negligence standard in 2022. The Court declined to import fault standards from the common-law tort of public disclosure of private facts because the statute neither codifies nor tracks that tort.
The Court did not decide whether imposing actual-damages liability without a mental-state requirement is constitutional. It explained that the certified question concerned only statutory interpretation and left the constitutional issue for the Third Circuit.
Key Takeaways
- A plaintiff seeking actual damages under N.J.S.A. 56:8-166.1(c)(1) need not prove that the defendant acted negligently, knowingly, recklessly, or intentionally.
- The notice requirement and 10-business-day compliance period do not operate as an implied negligence standard.
- Punitive damages remain subject to the statute’s express requirement of willful or reckless disregard of the law.
- The decision resolves the meaning of Daniel’s Law but leaves its constitutionality for the federal courts.
Why It Matters
The ruling rejects the negligence limitation adopted by the federal district court and confirms that Daniel’s Law’s actual-damages provision operates without a fault element. Businesses receiving qualifying removal notices therefore face potential liability if protected information remains available after the statutory compliance period, regardless of their mental state.
The decision does not end the federal litigation. The Third Circuit must now evaluate the defendants’ constitutional challenge using the New Jersey Supreme Court’s authoritative construction of the statute.