ATLAS DATA PRIVACY CORPORATION v. DARKOWL, LLC
1:24-cv-10600
| D.N.J. | Jun 27, 2025Background
- This opinion addresses 42 consolidated actions in the District of New Jersey, all involving violations of Daniel's Law (N.J.S.A. 56:8-166.1), a statute enacted to protect certain public officials’ private information after a high-profile assassination attempt targeting Judge Esther Salas.
- Plaintiffs, primarily Atlas Data Privacy Corporation as assignee for about 19,000 unnamed individuals (covered persons under the statute), accuse data companies of failing to remove protected home addresses and unlisted phone numbers from public internet listings after receipt of takedown notices.
- Defendants moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), arguing that the complaints fail under federal pleading standards, and that Daniel’s Law does not apply extraterritorially.
- Atlas operates an online platform allowing covered persons to send standardized email takedown notices to data companies; individual plaintiffs also joined, generally as law enforcement officers or family members.
- The complaints allege that, notwithstanding takedown requests, defendants continued to make information available online or otherwise, exposing plaintiffs to heightened risks of harm.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Pleading Sufficiency under Rule 8/Twombly/Iqbal | Allegations and supporting info meet plausibility + detail | Lacks sufficient particularity or factual detail; unclear if sender is proper party | Dismissal denied; pleadings sufficient |
| Validity of Takedown Notices | Notices complied with statutory requirements | Notices insufficiently detailed or not valid if sent via Atlas platform | Notices sufficient under statute |
| Showing of Harm and Actual/Liquidated Damages | Emotional distress and ongoing threat suffice; statute allows liquidated damages | Complaints generic; fail to show actual harm; liquidated damages improper | Sufficiently pleaded; liquidated damages plausible |
| Extraterritorial Application of Daniel's Law | Statute aims to protect NJ residents regardless of origin | Defendants outside NJ—statute shouldn’t apply to their conduct | Dismissal denied; Law can apply extraterritorially |
Key Cases Cited
- Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (Rule 8 pleading plausibility standard)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (clarifies and applies Twombly’s plausibility pleading standard)
- Carteret Properties v. Variety Donuts, Inc., 228 A.2d 674 (statutory notice specificity)
- In re Cendant Corp. Prides Litig., 311 F.3d 298 (presumption of delivery for mailed items)
- Peikin v. Kimmel & Silverman, P.C., 576 F. Supp. 2d 654 (extraterritorial application limits for NJ statutes)
- Turner v. Aldens, Inc., 433 A.2d 439 (NJ consumer statute applies to out-of-state retailer’s NJ customers)
- Oxford Consumer Disc. Co. of N. Phila. v. Stefanelli, 246 A.2d 460 (NJ statute applies to contracts executed out-of-state affecting NJ property)
- Aden v. Fortsch, 776 A.2d 792 (statutes presumed not to derogate common law without clear intent)