ATLAS DATA PRIVACY CORPORATION v. INNOVIS DATA SOLUTIONS INC.
1:24-cv-04176
| D.N.J. | Jun 27, 2025Background
- The case consolidates forty-two actions brought by Atlas Data Privacy Corporation, as assignee for around 19,000 individuals, alleging violations of New Jersey’s Daniel’s Law, which restricts disclosure of home addresses/unlisted phone numbers of judges, prosecutors, law enforcement, and their families.
- After the 2020 murder of Judge Salas’s son, Daniel’s Law was enacted to protect certain public officials from harm caused by Internet disclosure of their personal information.
- Plaintiffs claim they sent defendants (various data and information companies) takedown notices via an online platform operated by Atlas, demanding removal of protected information.
- Defendants moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), asserting failures in pleading (per Twombly/Iqbal) and, for some, arguing Daniel’s Law does not apply extraterritorially.
- The court considered whether the complaints adequately stated a claim for relief and whether Daniel’s Law’s protections extend to out-of-state conduct.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of Pleading Under Rule 8/Iqbal/Twombly | Complaints meet pleading standards; assignor details provided; takedown notices sent by covered persons; continued harmful disclosure alleged | Plaintiffs did not sufficiently identify assignors/harms, or show defendants received takedown notices | Complaints are sufficient; motions to dismiss on this ground denied |
| Validity of Takedown Notices | Written notices complied with Daniel’s Law requirements; substance not negated by use of Atlas's platform | Notices insufficiently detailed; not enough to trigger liability | Notices sufficient per statutory language and factual allegations |
| Alleging Harm/Damages | Harm inferred from context, including examples of threats; Daniel’s Law permits liquidated damages without quantified harm | No specific actual damages or harm pleaded; liquidated damages claims unsupported | Harm and liquidated damages properly pleaded |
| Extraterritorial Application of Daniel’s Law | Law intended to protect NJ residents regardless of where data holder is located; analogous to broadly-applied consumer statutes | Statute does not apply to out-of-state actors; conduct occurred outside NJ | Daniel’s Law applies extraterritorially to protect NJ interests; motions to dismiss denied |
Key Cases Cited
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (pleading standard for plausibility)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (facial plausibility and specificity for complaints)
- Aden v. Fortsch, 169 N.J. 64 (statutory interpretation and common law presumption)
- Turner v. Aldens, Inc., 179 N.J. Super. 596 (application of consumer statute to out-of-state conduct)
- Oxford Consumer Disc. Co. of N. Phila. v. Stefanelli, 102 N.J. Super. 549 (statute applies to protect New Jersey residents from out-of-state actors)