Jackson v. Whitepages, Inc.

What happened

In 2021, West Virginia passed its own version of Daniel's Law. The framing was nearly identical to New Jersey's, give law enforcement officers, judges, and their families a private right of action against data brokers that publish their home addresses. The structural details, though, were different.

In late 2024, a West Virginia officer sued Whitepages under the statute after Whitepages refused to take down his home address. Whitepages countered with a facial First Amendment challenge.

In August 2025, the Northern District of West Virginia struck the statute down. The case is on appeal to the Fourth Circuit. Until that appeal resolves, West Virginia officers cannot enforce the law.

What the court actually held

The challenged provision was Section E of West Virginia's analog to Daniel's Law, codified at W. Va. Code § 5A-8-24(e). The court found it is a content-based restriction on speech because it singles out a specific category of true facts (home addresses and phone numbers of certain officials) and bars publishing them.

Content-based restrictions get strict scrutiny. That is the most demanding constitutional test. The state has to show the statute serves a compelling interest and is narrowly tailored to that interest with no less-restrictive alternative.

The state interest, protecting officers and their families from targeted violence, was found compelling. That part of the test was not in dispute. The case turned on tailoring.

Two structural defects sank the West Virginia statute.

First, no notice requirement. The statute imposed liability the moment a broker published the information. The broker had no chance to take down the listing before liability attached. New Jersey's Daniel's Law, by contrast, gives the broker ten business days to comply after receiving a written notice. That notice ramp matters under strict scrutiny because it is a less-restrictive way to achieve the same protective goal.

Second, no knowledge or mens rea requirement. The statute could be triggered against a publisher who had no idea the information belonged to a covered official. The court held that a strict-liability rule, without any mental-state floor, is not narrowly tailored.

The combination, no notice plus no knowledge requirement, made the law fail strict scrutiny. The court did not address whether a redrafted version would survive. The legislature has the work cut out.

The reasoning shaped how the Third Circuit framed its certified questions in Atlas v. We Inform. The mens rea question now before the New Jersey Supreme Court came directly out of the analytical move this court made.

Why this matters to first responders

If you're a West Virginia officer, you cannot use the state Daniel's Law right now. The statute exists on the books but is unenforceable until the appeal resolves or the legislature fixes it. Your remedies are:

• The federal DPPA, if your address came from a DMV record. Liquidated damages of $2,500 per violation. Slower but federal.
• General privacy torts under West Virginia common law. Slower still and case-by-case.
• Public-records exemptions for active investigations and personnel files. Limited reach.

If you're outside West Virginia, the lesson is structural. State-level Daniel's Law analogs are not interchangeable. The text matters. New Jersey's drafting survived appellate review. West Virginia's did not. Other states with imitation statutes (Nebraska, Maryland, Oklahoma, Wisconsin, several more) are watching the Fourth Circuit appeal.

The West Virginia officer Whitepages incident page covers the underlying fact pattern in more detail.

What this case doesn't say

The ruling is narrow in a useful way. It does not hold that state Daniel's Laws are categorically unconstitutional. It says this particular statute, as drafted, does not survive strict scrutiny. That leaves room for the West Virginia legislature to redraft.

The court did not reach:

• Whether a notice-and-cure provision alone would have saved the statute
• Whether the federal DPPA preempts state-level analogs (it does not, but the question was not at issue)
• Whether the Atlas v. We Inform reasoning would apply if West Virginia copied New Jersey's text exactly

Those questions remain open.

Procedural posture

The N.D. W.Va. opinion is the trial-court ruling. The state of West Virginia and the officer plaintiff have appealed to the Fourth Circuit. Briefing is scheduled into 2026. The Fourth Circuit could affirm, reverse, or remand. None of those outcomes are predictable. The Third Circuit and Fourth Circuit do not always agree on First Amendment tailoring questions.

In the meantime, the legislature is reportedly drafting a replacement statute that mirrors New Jersey's text more closely, including a ten-day notice provision. Status is unclear as of the date of this page.

Downstream impact

This case has shifted how state legislators think about drafting Daniel's Law copies. Several states that introduced bills in 2024 and 2025 went back to redraft after the West Virginia ruling came down. The lesson the court delivered, accidentally, is that the New Jersey text is the proven template. Variations carry First Amendment risk that the original does not.

Brokers have started citing this case in opposition to state-level analogs in other circuits. The persuasive value is real but limited. A Fourth Circuit affirmance would carry more weight. A reversal would erase the case as a usable precedent for the broker industry.

Where this leaves West Virginia officers

The patrol officer in Wheeling whose address shows up on a broker site does not have a state remedy right now. The federal DPPA reaches DMV-sourced records. State-court privacy torts reach intentional disclosures with documented harm. Neither moves at the speed of a Daniel's Law notice.

The practical takeaway: file federal where the data source supports it, document everything, and watch the Fourth Circuit calendar. If the appeal restores the statute, the existing claims become viable. If not, the legislature is the next move.

Sources

• Troutman Pepper Locke (Aug. 22, 2025): troutman.com/insights/west-virginias-daniels-law-held-facially-unconstitutional
• Reason / Volokh Conspiracy (Aug. 20, 2025): reason.com/volokh/2025/08/20/court-strikes-down-w-va-doxing-law-banning-publishing-home-addresses-and-phone-numbers-of-certain-officials

What we do here

We track which state statutes are actually enforceable, which are pending appellate review, and which are being amended. For West Virginia members today, we file under the federal DPPA where it reaches and queue up state-law claims for the moment the West Virginia statute is repaired or restored.