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 dispute as Atlas v. We Inform. They are one case in two courts, not two cases. The federal appeal in the Third Circuit (No. 25-1555) was paused on September 2, 2025, when the Third Circuit certified a question of state law to the New Jersey Supreme Court. The New Jersey Supreme Court accepted the certification on October 21, 2025 (Docket A-8-25). Once it answers, the Third Circuit picks the appeal back up.

For the full procedural history, the Third Circuit certification, and the constitutional argument, see the Atlas v. We Inform page. This page focuses on the certified question.

What the court is being asked

The Third Circuit certified one question: what mental state, if any, is required to establish liability under Daniel's Law, N.J.S.A. 56:8-166.1? Mens rea is the mental state a defendant must have before a law can hold them liable.

Answering that question has two parts. First, does the law require any mental state at all? In plain terms, does a broker have to know an address belongs to a covered officer, or is the broker liable simply for publishing it? If no mental state is required, the law is strict liability, and the broker is liable regardless of what it knew.

Second, if a mental state is required, what level applies? The court could set a floor of negligence, recklessness, knowledge, or intent, and it could set different floors for different parts of the statute.

The positions on the mental-state question

The parties take different positions:

• Atlas Data Privacy Corp. and the New Jersey Attorney General argue the law requires at least negligence.
• The data brokers argue the statute sets no mental-state requirement at all, making it strict liability, and that a strict-liability restriction on publishing truthful information cannot survive First Amendment review.
• The only court to reach the question so far, the federal district court below, read a negligence standard into the statute.

The brokers are not arguing for strict liability because it helps them comply. They argue the law imposes strict liability, then argue that a strict-liability speech restriction is unconstitutional. Atlas and the Attorney General argue the opposite: that a negligence requirement is built into the text, which both preserves the law's practical enforceability and answers the constitutional objection.

Why this question decides so much

The Third Circuit did not rule on the First Amendment claim. It said the answer to the mens rea question "may be determinative" of whether Daniel's Law is facially valid, so it asked New Jersey to settle the state-law question first. The mental-state answer feeds directly into the strict-scrutiny tailoring analysis the brokers raised. That is the same issue at the center of West Virginia's parallel litigation, discussed on the Jackson v. Whitepages page, where the absence of a mental-state requirement was one reason a federal court struck West Virginia's analog statute.

The practical enforcement model also turns on the answer. Atlas takes assignments from covered officers and files consolidated suits against brokers. Daniel's Law lets covered people and their immediate family send written notices demanding removal of their home address and unlisted phone number. A broker that does not comply within 10 business days faces damages of at least $1,000 per violation, injunctions, and punitive damages for willful or reckless violations. A low mental-state floor keeps that model working across many defendants at once. A high floor forces each case into a fact dispute about what the specific broker knew and when.

Oral argument and timing

Oral argument was held on March 17, 2026. No decision has issued as of July 2026. The New Jersey Supreme Court typically issues opinions within several months of argument, so a ruling in 2026 is possible, but the court has not announced a date. Treat the timing as open.

Related ruling: the journalist case

Separately from A-8-25, the New Jersey Supreme Court ruled on June 17, 2025 in Kratovil v. City of New Brunswick that Daniel's Law barred a journalist, Charlie Kratovil, from publishing the precise home address of New Brunswick police director Anthony Caputo. The ruling was not a clean sweep on every point. The court rejected the lower court's view and held that Caputo's address was a matter of public concern, because the story questioned whether he lived too far away to do his job. But it still upheld the law as constitutional, calling it carefully calibrated to serve a compelling interest in the safety of covered officials, applied only to discrete at-risk categories, and requiring notice before liability attaches. Kratovil could report that Caputo lived in Cape May, just not the exact address. First Amendment advocates, including the ACLU of New Jersey, criticized the ruling as a threat to watchdog journalism.

That case is not A-8-25. It is a separate matter with a different posture. It is relevant here because the same court read Daniel's Law broadly and upheld it against a direct free-press challenge shortly before taking up the mental-state question.

Coverage: NJ Spotlight News (June 2025).

What this means for New Jersey officers right now

The right to send removal notices exists today and is not paused by this case. A covered officer can send Daniel's Law notices now, and noncompliant brokers still face per-violation liability. The certified question decides the standard of proof for that liability, not whether the right exists.

If the court finds no mental-state requirement, or one only for punitive damages, the enforcement model Atlas built stays intact. If the court reads in a knowledge or intent requirement, brokers can argue they did not know an address belonged to a covered officer, and each claim becomes harder to prove. The court could also set a middle standard, such as negligence or recklessness, or apply different standards to damages and to injunctions. The court has not signaled which way it will go, and predictions here would be guesses.

The advice while the case is pending does not change. Covered officers should keep sending notices and keep records of what they sent and when.

What the certified question does not cover

The question is narrowly framed. On it, the court is not deciding:

• Whether Daniel's Law violates the First Amendment. The Third Circuit reserved that question for itself once the state-law answer returns.
• Whether each republication is a separate violation. That issue sits in the consolidated trial-court docket.
• Who counts as a covered person at the edges. Same trial-court posture.
• Whether the federal DPPA — the Driver's Privacy Protection Act, which limits the release of motor vehicle records — preempts the statute. Not before the court on this question.

Those issues return to the trial courts and to the Third Circuit after New Jersey answers.

Procedural posture

The New Jersey Supreme Court accepted the certified question on October 21, 2025. Briefing closed in early 2026. Oral argument was held on March 17, 2026. No decision has issued. 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.

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

Frontline Privacy files Daniel's Law removal notices for covered New Jersey officers and keeps a record of each step, so the file is ready whichever way the court rules. The pending decision changes how the law is enforced, not whether covered officers can send notices.