ATLAS DATA PRIVACY CORPORATION v. LIGHTHOUSE LIST COMPANY, LLC
1:24-cv-11443
| D.N.J. | Jun 27, 2025Background
- Atlas Data Privacy Corp. sued on behalf of approximately 19,000 New Jersey judges, prosecutors, law enforcement, and family members, under Daniel’s Law, N.J.S.A. 56:8-166.1, after takedown requests for personal information were ignored by dozens of data brokers and internet entities.
- Plaintiffs allege defendants continued disclosing or making available covered persons’ home addresses and phone numbers online after receiving lawful takedown notices.
- The complaints are materially identical and arose after New Jersey enacted Daniel’s Law following the murder of Judge Salas’s son, intended to prevent harm by restricting disclosure of covered persons’ private information.
- Defendants filed consolidated and individual motions to dismiss, arguing, among other things, failure to meet federal pleading standards (Rule 8, Twombly/Iqbal), improper notice, insufficient damages alleged, and lack of extraterritorial application.
- The court currently addressed only the sufficiency of the pleadings (Rule 8/Twombly/Iqbal) and the extraterritorial application of Daniel’s Law, deferring constitutional and preemption arguments.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Rule 8/Twombly/Iqbal sufficiency | Complaints allege all assignors are covered persons, required info provided, and violations by defendants. | Complaints fail to identify assignors, lack specific factual details, and do not plausibly allege violations. | Complaints meet federal pleading standards; motion denied. |
| Proper Service/Notice | Covered persons sent takedown requests via Atlas platform. | Notices insufficient—either not sent by covered persons directly or not received. | Notices sufficient under statute and pleading standards. |
| Damages & Liquidated Damages | Harm, including emotional distress and security threats, is reasonably inferred; statute authorizes liquidated damages. | No actual damages alleged; liquidated damages not triggered without concrete harm. | Complaints sufficiently allege damages and entitlement to liquidated damages. |
| Extraterritorial Application of Daniel’s Law | Statute protects NJ residents regardless of defendant location; law akin to consumer protection statutes applied extraterritorially. | Law does not reach out-of-state conduct; follows employment law extraterritoriality principles. | Daniel’s Law applies extraterritorially to protect NJ interests; motion denied. |
Key Cases Cited
- Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (Rule 8 plausibility pleading standard)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (further explaining plausibility standard)
- Aden v. Fortsch, 776 A.2d 792 (statutory construction, presumption against derogation of common law)
- Murray v. Plainfield Rescue Squad, 46 A.3d 1262 (statutory interpretation)
- Real v. Radir Wheels, Inc., 969 A.2d 1069 (plain language rule in statutory interpretation)
- Turner v. Aldens, Inc., 433 A.2d 439 (extraterritorial application of NJ consumer protection law)
- Oxford Consumer Disc. Co. of N. Phila. v. Stefanelli, 246 A.2d 460 (extraterritorial effect of mortgage law to protect NJ residents)