Atlas Data Privacy Corp. v. We Inform LLC (certified question, NJ Supreme Court)

Read this first

This page covers the New Jersey side of the same case as Atlas v. We Inform. They are not two separate disputes. The case sits in two courts at once. The federal-side appeal in the Third Circuit (No. 25-1555) was paused on September 2, 2025 when the Third Circuit certified two questions of state law to the New Jersey Supreme Court. The Supreme Court accepted the certification on October 21, 2025 (Docket A-8-25). Once the New Jersey Supreme Court answers, the Third Circuit picks the appeal back up.

For the full procedural history of the case, the Third Circuit certification, and the underlying constitutional analysis, see the Atlas v. We Inform page. This page focuses on the certified questions themselves.

What the court is being asked

Two questions. Both about mens rea (the lawyer term for the mental state a defendant has to have for the law to hold them liable).

1. Does Daniel's Law require a mens rea before liability attaches? Put plainly, does a broker have to know the address belongs to a covered officer, or is the broker liable just for publishing it? If the answer is no mens rea required, the statute is strict liability. The broker is on the hook regardless of intent.

2. If a mens rea is required, which standard applies to which remedies? Different mental-state floors could apply to different parts of the statute. The court could require knowledge for damages but not for injunctive relief. Or recklessness for compensatory damages and knowledge for punitive damages. Different standards for different remedies is a workable middle ground.

Why mens rea is the whole ballgame

Daniel's Law works at scale because Atlas can file batched cases against brokers without proving each broker knew which addresses belonged to which officers. The volume model assumes strict liability or something close to it.

If the New Jersey Supreme Court reads in a knowledge requirement, brokers can argue they did not know the address belonged to a covered officer. Each case becomes a fact dispute about what the broker knew and when. The number of viable claims drops. The cost-of-litigation side of the broker's calculus goes up. The compliance posture brokers adopted after the trial-court ruling reverses.

The constitutional analysis is downstream of the mens rea answer. The Third Circuit certified rather than rule because the First Amendment narrow-tailoring question turns on what the statute actually requires the publisher to know. The mental-state answer feeds directly into the strict-scrutiny tailoring analysis the brokers raised.

This is the same analytical move the Northern District of West Virginia made in Jackson v. Whitepages, where the absence of a mens rea floor was one of the two reasons the court struck the West Virginia analog. The New Jersey Supreme Court is now asked whether Daniel's Law avoids that defect.

Oral argument and timing

Oral argument was held on March 17, 2026. Decision pending as of May 2026. The New Jersey Supreme Court typically issues opinions within six to nine months of oral argument. A ruling by late 2026 is plausible.

Related ruling: journalist case

Separately from A-8-25, the New Jersey Supreme Court issued a ruling in June 2025 holding that Daniel's Law applies to journalists. The court blocked a reporter from publishing a police director's home address. First Amendment advocates pushed back, arguing the ruling chills watchdog journalism.

That case is not the same as A-8-25. It is a different case with a different procedural posture. It matters here because it shows how broadly Daniel's Law has been read by the same court that is now answering the mens rea questions. A court that read the statute broadly against a journalist may also read it broadly on the mens rea question.

Coverage: NJ Spotlight News (June 2025).

What's at stake for first responders

Officers in New Jersey have sent more Daniel's Law notices in the last three years than at any other time, and most of those notices were filed by Atlas as the assignee. The settlement payments have covered tens of thousands of removals. The system works because the brokers face per-violation liability that compounds when they get sloppy.

If the New Jersey Supreme Court reads Daniel's Law as requiring no mens rea, the math holds. Brokers either build a permanent compliance pipeline or they pay. National brokers have already chosen compliance because of the trial-court ruling. That posture continues.

If the court reads in a knowledge requirement, the math changes. Brokers can argue they did not know. Atlas has to prove what they knew. The volume model gets harder.

If the court splits the answer, requiring knowledge for damages but not for injunctive relief, the takedown power survives but the financial bite weakens.

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 court is unlikely to reach

The certified questions are tightly framed. The court is not deciding:

• Whether Daniel's Law violates the First Amendment categorically. The Third Circuit reserved 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. Edge cases return to the trial courts.

What's likely to happen

Predictions are dangerous. The New Jersey Supreme Court has historically been protective of state-law remedies and skeptical of broker arguments that depend on federalism workarounds. Daniel Anderl was a New Jersey resident. The court is unlikely to gut the statute named for him. But "unlikely" is not "won't."

A few rough scenarios.

• No mens rea required, or mens rea required only for punitive damages. Most consistent with the legislature's intent and with the volume model Atlas built. Brokers walk away with an operational structure they can plan around but no get-out-of-jail card.
• Knowledge required for damages, no mens rea required for injunctive relief. Splits the difference. Takedowns still work. Damages get harder to prove.
• Recklessness floor for damages. Higher than knowledge but lower than intent. A workable compromise.
• Knowledge required across the board. Lowest probability for officers. Would significantly weaken the statute.

Procedural posture

The New Jersey Supreme Court accepted the certified questions on October 21, 2025. Briefing closed in early 2026. Oral argument was held on March 17, 2026. Decision pending. Once the court rules, the Third Circuit appeal in Atlas v. We Inform (No. 25-1555) resumes and the panel applies the answer to the federal constitutional analysis.

Coverage from the NJ Officer broker class actions incident page tracks the underlying litigation in more detail.

Sources

• New Jersey Monitor (Mar. 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
• EPIC case page: epic.org/documents/atlas-data-privacy-corp-et-al-v-we-inform-llc-et-al
• NJ Spotlight News on the journalist ruling (June 2025): njspotlightnews.org/2025/06/first-amendment-advocates-fear-nj-supreme-court-ruling-is-blow-to-watchdog-journalism-charlie-kratovil

What we do here

We file Daniel's Law notices on covered NJ officers' behalf, document every step, and keep the file ready for whatever the court decides. The legal ground is solid. The court is settling how it gets enforced, not whether it gets enforced.