ATLAS DATA PRIVACY CORPORATION v. LABELS & LISTS, INC
1:24-cv-04174
| D.N.J. | Jun 27, 2025Background
- A series of 42 consolidated actions were brought by Atlas Data Privacy Corporation, as assignee for about 19,000 covered persons (judges, prosecutors, law enforcement, and immediate family), against various entities alleged to have disclosed their home addresses or unpublished phone numbers online, in violation of Daniel's Law (N.J.S.A. 56:8-166.1).
- Daniel’s Law was enacted following the murder of a federal judge’s son, aimed at protecting personal information of certain public officials after they or their family had been targeted due to publicly available address information.
- Atlas operates a platform that helps covered persons identify offending entities and send takedown notices; the lawsuit alleges defendants failed to comply with such notices.
- Defendants moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), saying the complaints are insufficient under Rule 8 (and Twombly/Iqbal), and that Daniel’s Law should not apply extraterritorially to out-of-state defendants.
- The current decision addresses only the sufficiency of the pleadings and the scope of Daniel's Law’s territorial reach; other motions (e.g., preemption, constitutionality, personal jurisdiction) are deferred.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency under Rule 8 and Twombly/Iqbal | Complaints sufficiently plead facts, covered status, and harm. | Pleadings are deficient, too conclusory, lack specifics about each assignor and damages. | Denied: Complaints are sufficiently pleaded. |
| Whether takedown notices were sent by authorized persons | Covered individuals sent notices through Atlas as a facilitator. | Notices weren’t from authorized persons, but from Atlas itself. | Denied: Covered persons were senders. |
| Sufficiency of takedown notice contents | Notices met statutory requirements and informed defendants of violation. | Notices were formulaic and insufficient; citing Carteret Properties v. Variety Donuts. | Denied: Notices sufficient under statute. |
| Extraterritorial application of Daniel's Law | Statute’s intent is to protect NJ residents from harms regardless of source. | Law does not apply to conduct outside New Jersey. | Denied: Law applies to out-of-state conduct. |
Key Cases Cited
- Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (Rule 8 pleading standards for plausibility)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (clarifying plausibility pleading under Rule 8)
- Carteret Properties v. Variety Donuts, Inc., 228 A.2d 674 (precision required for statutory notice requirement)
- Aden v. Fortsch, 776 A.2d 792 (statutory abrogation of common law requires clear intent)
- Turner v. Aldens, Inc., 433 A.2d 439 (interpreting scope of consumer protection statutes for extraterritorial effect)
- Oxford Consumer Disc. Co. of N. Phila. v. Stefanelli, 246 A.2d 460 (extraterritorial application of consumer statutes targeting NJ residents)