ATLAS DATA PRIVACY CORPORATION v. DELVEPOINT, LLC
1:24-cv-04096
| D.N.J. | Jun 27, 2025Background
- Plaintiffs (Atlas Data Privacy Corporation and individual law enforcement officers) filed 42 suits as assignees of about 19,000 covered individuals under Daniel’s Law, a New Jersey statute passed after the murder of a judge’s son to protect certain officials’ home addresses and phone numbers.
- Defendants are entities alleged to have published or made available protected information online after being notified via takedown requests sent using Atlas’s platform.
- Plaintiffs seek actual and/or liquidated damages, punitive damages, attorneys’ fees, and injunctive relief for alleged ongoing violations after defendants failed to take down protected information.
- Defendants moved to dismiss for failure to state a claim (Rule 12(b)(6)), challenging the sufficiency of the pleadings under Rule 8, and argued that Daniel’s Law cannot be applied extraterritorially to out-of-state conduct.
- Court consolidated several motions but only addressed the pleading standard and extraterritoriality arguments; constitutional/preemption and personal jurisdiction issues were reserved for later disposition.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Rule 8 & Plausibility of Pleadings | Allegations are detailed, assignors identified, takedown notices authentic; facts show plausible violation. | Complaints are conclusory, assignors not named, notices insufficient or not properly sent. | Complaint satisfies Rule 8 and Iqbal/Twombly; dismissal denied. |
| Authorization & Delivery of Notices | Notices were sent by covered persons using Atlas's service; third-party delivery valid. | Atlas as sender, not covered persons; efficacy of notice delivery questioned. | Notices sent by covered persons using third-party platform are valid; presumption of delivery applies. |
| Extraterritorial Application of Daniel’s Law | Statutory purpose is to protect NJ residents from harm, regardless of info source location; law should reach out-of-state actors publishing into NJ. | Law applies only in-state; extraterritorial conduct is not within NJ statute. | Daniel’s Law applies extraterritorially to protect NJ residents; dismissal denied. |
| Sufficiency of Damages Allegations | Harm (emotional distress, security risk) and statutory liquidated damages alleged; punitive and injunctive relief stated. | Boilerplate/insufficient damages; liquidated damages not proper, failure to show proximate cause. | Sufficiently alleged; damages, causation, and punitive claims can proceed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (Rule 8 pleading standards – plausibility).
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (Further defines plausibility in pleadings).
- Carteret Properties v. Variety Donuts, Inc., 228 A.2d 674 (Statutory notice requirements distinguished).
- Aden v. Fortsch, 776 A.2d 792 (Presumption against statutory derogation from common law, proximate cause).
- Murray v. Plainfield Rescue Squad, 46 A.3d 1262 (Statutory interpretation, legislative intent).
- Real v. Radir Wheels, Inc., 969 A.2d 1069 (Applying plain language rule in statutory construction).
- Oxford Consumer Discount Co. of N. Phila. v. Stefanelli, 246 A.2d 460 (NJ court permitted extraterritorial application of consumer protection law).
- Turner v. Aldens, Inc., 433 A.2d 439 (Extraterritorial reach of retail protection statutes).