ATLAS DATA PRIVACY CORPORATION v. WE INFORM, LLC, 758 F.Supp.3d 322

Plaintiffs are law enforcement officers and their assignee, Atlas Data Privacy Corp., alleging violations of New Jersey’s Daniel’s Law, which restricts disclosure of covered persons’ home addresses and unlisted phone numbers.
Multiple suits (37 civil actions) were consolidated after being removed from NJ state court to federal court on diversity grounds; all District of NJ judges recused themselves, and the case was reassigned to an out-of-district judge.
Daniel’s Law was enacted in response to the 2020 assassination attempt on Judge Esther Salas, which resulted in her son’s death, aiming to protect justice system officials from reprisal.
Plaintiffs allege defendants—real estate, marketing, and data broker companies—ignored written requests to cease disclosing their personal information.
Defendants moved to dismiss on the grounds Daniel’s Law is unconstitutional, alleging it facially abridges their free speech rights under the First Amendment.
The New Jersey Attorney General and several law enforcement associations intervened or provided amicus briefs.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Daniel’s Law restricts speech or mere data	Restricts only data, not expressive speech	Restricts communicative speech by naming	Law regulates speech by linking data to individuals
Whether law targets commercial speech	Regulates only commercial speech	Not limited to commercial, covers all uses	Law targets noncommercial, subject matter speech
Content-neutral v. content-based restriction	Content-neutral privacy law	Content-based, targets specific information	Law is content-based, triggers higher scrutiny
Constitutional test for privacy-related speech limits	Intermediate scrutiny, akin to privacy law	Strict scrutiny required	Applied privacy balancing test (The Florida Star factors)
Whether covered info is of public significance	Not of public significance	Could be newsworthy in some instances	Home address/phone not generally of public significance
Does law serve compelling state interest	Yes—safety/security of public officials	Not sufficiently tailored or overbroad	Law serves state interest of the highest order
Whether law is underinclusive/unreasonably tailored	Distinctions justified, not arbitrary	Exemptions mean not effective/too narrow	Not fatally underinclusive; permissible legislative focus
Strict liability or negligence standard for damages	At least negligence required	Strict liability is unconstitutional	Law interpreted to require negligence for civil damages

Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319 (basis for 12(b)(6) dismissal standard)
Central Hudson Gas & Electric Corp. v. Public Service Commission, 447 U.S. 557 (distinguishing commercial from noncommercial speech)
Reed v. Town of Gilbert, 576 U.S. 155 (defines content-based regulations and strict scrutiny)
City of Austin v. Reagan Nat’l Advertising of Austin, LLC, 596 U.S. 61 (distinction between content-neutral and subject-matter regulation)
The Florida Star v. B.J.F., 491 U.S. 524 (establishes test for privacy statutes restricting truthful speech)
Cox Broadcasting Corp. v. Cohn, 420 U.S. 469 (First Amendment restricts state privacy laws)
Smith v. California, 361 U.S. 147 (First Amendment prohibits strict liability for speech-related offenses)
U.S. Department of Justice v. Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, 489 U.S. 749 (distinguishing privacy interests in compiled vs. scattered information)
Williams-Yulee v. Florida Bar, 575 U.S. 433 (permissibility of underinclusive speech restrictions)
Nat’l Rifle Ass’n of Am. v. Vullo, 602 U.S. 175 (pleading standards)
Paul P. v. Farmer, 227 F.3d 98 (3d Cir. 2000) (privacy interest in home address)