Atlas Data Privacy Corp. v. We Inform LLC
What the court held, why it matters for first responders, and how it shapes practice. Plain English.
Holding
The District of New Jersey upheld Daniel's Law as constitutional in November 2024 under a three-part balancing test. The case is now before the New Jersey Supreme Court on certified questions about whether the statute requires a mens rea (mental state) before liability attaches, and if so, which standard applies to which remedies.
Why it matters
This is the live constitutional test of Daniel's Law. The trial court said the statute survives. The Third Circuit punted the hard question to the New Jersey Supreme Court. Whether Daniel's Law remains a usable shield at scale depends on the answer.
What this case actually is
Atlas Data Privacy Corp. is the assignee that handles Daniel's Law claims for thousands of New Jersey officers, prosecutors, and judges. Officers sign over their cause of action. Atlas sends the demand, then files suit when the broker drags its feet. Since 2023 they've filed batched cases against more than a hundred brokers in the District of New Jersey.
The brokers fought back the only way they could. They argued Daniel's Law violates the First Amendment because home addresses are public information, and forcing them off broker sites is a content-based restriction on speech.
The case has run a long road since the original filings. As of spring 2026, it sits before the New Jersey Supreme Court on certified questions. The federal-side appeal in the Third Circuit and the state-side certified-question docket are the same dispute viewed from different angles. See the NJ Supreme Court certified questions page for the state-side view of A-8-25.
Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Nov 26, 2024 | District of New Jersey (24-cv-4392) denied the brokers' motion to dismiss. The court upheld Daniel's Law under a three-part balancing test: lawfully obtained information, a state interest of the highest order, and a statute narrowly drawn to serve that interest. |
| Mar 31, 2025 | The brokers appealed to the Third Circuit (25-1555). |
| Jul 8-9, 2025 | Third Circuit oral argument. |
| Sep 2, 2025 | The Third Circuit certified two questions to the New Jersey Supreme Court rather than rule itself. (1) Does Daniel's Law require a mens rea (a mental state, like knowing or reckless conduct) before liability attaches? (2) If so, which mens rea standard applies to which remedies? |
| Oct 21, 2025 | The New Jersey Supreme Court accepted the certified questions, Docket A-8-25. |
| Mar 17, 2026 | New Jersey Supreme Court oral argument. Decision pending as of May 2026. |
What "mens rea" means here in plain English
Mens rea is the lawyer term for the mental state a defendant has to have before the law can hold them liable. The question is whether a broker has to know it is publishing a covered person's information, or whether it is liable just for publishing it, regardless of intent.
If the answer is "no mens rea required," brokers are on the hook even when they did not know who was on the list. That is the strict-liability reading and it is what makes the statute scale.
If the answer is "mens rea required," brokers can argue they didn't know the address belonged to a covered officer. Atlas's volume model gets harder. Each case has to prove what the broker knew and when.
The court is also being asked whether the same standard applies to every remedy, or whether the standard for an injunction differs from the standard for damages. Different mens rea floors for different remedies is a workable middle ground.
What the District of New Jersey held
The trial court denied the brokers' motion to dismiss in November 2024. Judge Quraishi applied a three-part balancing test drawn from the Supreme Court's privacy and First Amendment cases.
- Lawfully obtained information. The brokers argued that home addresses are pulled from public records, so the information was lawfully obtained. The court accepted that as a starting point.
- State interest of the highest order. Protecting officers, prosecutors, and judges from targeted violence. The court found the interest concrete and well documented, anchored in the Anderl murder.
- Narrowly drawn. The statute reaches only home address and unpublished home phone, not names, employers, or anything else. The court held that scope was sufficiently narrow.
The brokers raised the same facial First Amendment theory the industry has used in every Daniel's Law case. The court rejected it. The motion to dismiss was denied. The brokers appealed.
What the Third Circuit did with the appeal
The Third Circuit heard oral argument over July 8 and 9, 2025. Rather than decide the constitutional question itself, the panel certified the two mens rea questions to the New Jersey Supreme Court. The reasoning: the constitutional analysis turns on what kind of mental state Daniel's Law actually requires, and that is a question of New Jersey state law that the New Jersey Supreme Court should answer first.
The certification order stopped the Third Circuit appeal in place. Once the New Jersey Supreme Court rules on the certified questions, the Third Circuit will pick the case back up and apply the answer to the federal constitutional analysis.
Why this matters to first responders
If the New Jersey Supreme Court reads Daniel's Law as requiring no mens rea, the statute keeps doing what it was built to do. Brokers face per-violation liability whether or not they knew. The volume math that makes Atlas's model work continues to function. National brokers keep complying.
If the court reads in a knowledge requirement, Daniel's Law gets harder to enforce. Brokers can argue ignorance. Atlas has to prove knowledge case by case. The number of viable claims drops. Brokers reverse the compliance posture they adopted after the trial-court ruling.
If the court splits the answer, requiring knowledge for damages but not for injunctive relief, the statute keeps its takedown power but loses some of its financial bite. That outcome would be workable but weaker than the current ground.
The practical advice while the case is pending does not change. Keep filing notices. Keep documenting receipts. The right exists. The court is settling how it gets enforced, not whether it gets enforced.
What the case will not reach
The certified questions are tightly framed. The court is not deciding:
- Whether Daniel's Law violates the First Amendment categorically. The Third Circuit is reserving that question for itself once the state-law answer comes back.
- Whether each republication is a separate violation. That question is in the consolidated trial court docket but is not before the Supreme Court on these certified questions.
- Who counts as a covered person at the edges. Same posture, trial-court level.
- Whether the federal DPPA preempts. Not in the docket.
A ruling will likely answer the two certified questions and stop there. The trial court will then apply the answer.
Procedural posture
The case is consolidated with dozens of others in the District of New Jersey. We Inform LLC is the lead defendant on the constitutional question, but the same ruling will reach every broker that raised the same defense. By late 2024 there were 37+ consolidated civil actions pending in D.N.J. against more than 100 brokers. Settlements are confidential. Brokers keep settling.
After oral argument on March 17, 2026, the New Jersey Supreme Court typically issues opinions within six to nine months. A ruling by late 2026 is plausible. The Third Circuit appeal resumes once the certified answers come back.
Where the legislature stands
In late 2025, S-3527 was floated to cap per-violation damages under Daniel's Law. That bill has not advanced. Judge Salas, whose son's murder is the reason Daniel's Law exists, pushed back publicly through Reuters in April 2026. The statute as written is intact.
Sources
- EPIC case page: epic.org/documents/atlas-data-privacy-corp-et-al-v-we-inform-llc-et-al
- New Jersey Monitor (March 18, 2026): newjerseymonitor.com/2026/03/18/nj-supreme-court-daniels-law
- New Jersey Globe on the Third Circuit certification: newjerseyglobe.com/judiciary/third-circuit-tosses-daniels-law-fight-to-n-j-supreme-court
- CourtListener docket: courtlistener.com/docket/69849226/authorities/atlas-data-privacy-corp-v-we-inform-llc
What we do here
If you are covered under Daniel's Law and a broker is dragging its feet, we send the notice, document the response, and escalate when the ten-day clock runs out. The constitutional ground beneath that process is being settled now. The statute is alive while the court works.