ATLAS DATA PRIVACY CORPORATION v. WE INFORM, LLC
1:24-cv-04037
| D.N.J. | Jun 27, 2025Background
- Atlas Data Privacy Corp. filed 42 materially identical lawsuits as the assignee of ~19,000 unnamed New Jersey law enforcement and judicial personnel under "Daniel's Law" (N.J.S.A. 56:8-166.1) after takedown notices they initiated (via Atlas’s platform) were allegedly ignored by data brokers and similar defendants.
- Daniel’s Law was enacted to curb online disclosure of residential information of protected categories (e.g., judges, law enforcement) following the murder of Judge Esther Salas’s son, and provides for statutory, actual, and punitive damages, as well as injunctive relief.
- Defendants moved to dismiss under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6), arguing the complaints failed to meet pleading standards and, for certain out-of-state defendants, that Daniel’s Law does not apply extraterritorially.
- The court consolidated the defendants’ core motions, focusing its opinion on the adequacy of the pleadings and the extraterritorial reach of Daniel’s Law.
- The court deferred ruling on preemption, constitutionality, and personal jurisdiction, pending further briefing and discovery.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency under Rule 8, Twombly & Iqbal | Factual allegations are plausible; assigns identified; notices compliant | Pleadings fail to specify assignors, show harm, or identify sufficient facts | Complaints satisfy plausibility; required info provided or to be provided; motions to dismiss denied |
| Whether Atlas/assignors are “authorized persons” | Platform users are covered persons; notices valid even if sent via Atlas | Notices invalid since sent via Atlas, not directly by individuals | Notices valid if sent by authorized person through platform; legal distinction immaterial |
| Sufficiency/receipt of takedown notices | Notices sent by assignors via Atlas platform; delivery presumed | Notices insufficient or not received; delivery not plausibly pled | Written notice language of statute met; presumption of delivery by email applies |
| Extraterritorial application of Daniel’s Law | Law protects NJ residents regardless of data broker’s location | Law does not apply to out-of-state activities | Law applies extraterritorially to protect NJ residents; prior consumer statutes cited |
Key Cases Cited
- Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (adequacy of pleading standard)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (pleading plausibility standard)
- Turner v. Aldens, Inc., 433 A.2d 439 (NJ consumer protection statutes may apply to out-of-state conduct)
- Oxford Consumer Disc. Co. of N. Phila. v. Stefanelli, 246 A.2d 460 (NJ law applied to out-of-state transaction affecting NJ residents)
- Carteret Properties v. Variety Donuts, Inc., 228 A.2d 674 (example of specificity in statutory notice requirements)
- Aden v. Fortsch, 776 A.2d 792 (common law presumption against derogation absent clear legislative intent)