ATLAS DATA PRIVACY CORPORATION v. QUANTARIUM ALLIANCE, LLC, 1:24-cv-04098

Atlas Data Privacy Corp. ("Atlas") brings 42 consolidated actions as assignee for ~19,000 individuals (judges, prosecutors, law enforcement, and family) under New Jersey’s Daniel’s Law, claiming defendants unlawfully published their protected personal information online after takedown requests.
Defendants move to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), primarily for failure to state a claim under Rule 8 and Twombly/Iqbal, and for lack of extraterritorial reach of Daniel’s Law to out-of-state defendants.
Atlas’s platform facilitates takedown notices directly by covered individuals, but via Atlas’s infrastructure, raising questions about authorization and notice sufficiency.
Daniel’s Law requires timely takedown of covered persons’ home addresses/unpublished phone numbers after written notice, and provides for damages, including $1,000 liquidated damages per violation, plus punitive damages for willful/reckless violations.
The complaints largely allege continued improper disclosure of protected information despite proper electronic notice, and recite specific harms suffered by individual plaintiffs.
The cases are at the pleading stage; some arguments (federal preemption, constitutionality, personal jurisdiction) are reserved for later briefing.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Pleading Sufficiency (Rule 8 / Twombly/Iqbal)	Complaints contain concrete factual allegations and will provide identities and details as ordered	Complaints lack specifics on assignors, actual harm, and conduct	Denied: Sufficient facts pleaded, details provided/by order
Notice Sufficiency & Authorization	Notices complied with statutory requirements and were sent by covered persons, even if via Atlas	Notices were not valid—sent by Atlas, not covered persons, or insufficiently specific	Denied: Notices satisfied the statute; use of Atlas as agent permitted
Allegation of Negligence & Damages	Facts (continued disclosure after notice) support inference of at least negligence; harm includes emotional distress, and liquidated damages proper	No explicit negligence alleged; damages and harm are boilerplate or insufficient	Denied: Negligence, proximate cause, and damages adequately pleaded; liquidated/punitive damages valid
Extraterritorial Application	Statute aims to protect NJ residents from out-of-state disclosures via the internet; law should reach out-of-state actors	Daniel's Law should not apply to actions outside NJ, as no clear extraterritorial intent	Denied: Statute’s intent and structure support extraterritorial application to cover out-of-state actors transmitting data into NJ

Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (pleading standard for plausibility)
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (complaint must state plausible claim on its face)
Pension Benefit Guar. Corp. v. White Consol. Indus., Inc., 998 F.2d 1192 (documents integral to complaint may be considered on motion to dismiss)
Turner v. Aldens, Inc., 433 A.2d 439 (NJ consumer protection law applies extraterritorially if intent is to protect NJ residents)
Oxford Consumer Discount Co. of North Philadelphia v. Stefanelli, 246 A.2d 460 (NJ law applies to protect NJ residents from out-of-state conduct)