LAW
LAW
How Changes to Daniel’ s Law Put NJ Businesses in the Crosshairs
By Public Safety Information Protection Coalition
What began as a heartfelt effort to protect New Jersey’ s public servants has, post amendments, become a legal and financial trap for businesses across the state, according to Public Safety Information Protection Coalition( PSIPC) spokesperson John Molinelli.
Daniel’ s Law, passed in 2020, was created in response to the horrific tragedy that claimed the life of Daniel Anderl, the son of U. S. District Court Judge Esther Salas. The law’ s purpose was honorable: to shield the personal information of judges, law enforcement, and other public officials from public view to prevent similar attacks.
But in 2023, amendments – backed by a company called Atlas Data Privacy Corporation according to state lobbying records – transformed the law’ s reach. The result? More than 150 lawsuits filed seeking over $ 2.6 billion in mandatory damages against companies of all sizes, claiming they failed to respond to requests to remove covered persons’ personal information( name, telephone number and home address), according to court documents.
“ The 2023 amendments to Daniel’ s Law were promoted to ensure the protection of more public safety officials’ information, but the opposite occurred,” said Molinelli, who served 14 years as the Bergen County prosecutor and is a covered person under Daniel’ s Law.
A Shift in Scope Brings Risk
Originally, Daniel’ s Law focused on preventing the disclosure of personal information like home addresses and phone numbers. But the 2023 amendments expanded the definition of disclosure to include even possessing such information in internal databases. This creates excessive restrictions that hinder compliance for businesses of all sizes.
“ Because the law does not require those making the request to provide basic information to verify it, it’ s harder for businesses to figure out if a request that comes in is legitimate and whether they are removing the right person’ s information,” said Anthony Russo, president of the Commerce and Industry Association of New Jersey( CIANJ).
“ In response, companies are now having to create new processes, buy new software, and even hire and train new staff to handle the compliance. But the threat of mandatory penalties and‘ gotcha’ lawsuits for those who fall short despite their best efforts has racked up legal bills and forced some to stop doing business in New Jersey or close altogether. This trend can cause lasting damage to our state’ s economy.”
The changes to Daniel’ s Law in 2023 also allowed covered public servants to assign their rights to a third party and made penalties mandatory for failing to comply with requests to remove a covered person’ s information within the statutory 10-day period.
One of the most prominent of these third parties is Atlas, which lobbied for the law’ s changes, then registered thousands of covered individuals and began sending out tens of thousands of nondisclosure requests – and then sued those businesses when they could not comply within the 10-day period, according to court records, Molinelli said.
“ It became a self-fulfilling prophecy that Atlas engineered when they fought to change the law, so they could reap the profits from predatory lawsuits,” Molinelli said.
A Business Burden The resulting surge of legal activity has left businesses scrambling.
“ The amendments have made it extremely difficult, in some cases impossible, for many businesses acting in good faith to verify and comply with Daniel’ s Law nondisclosure requests, allowing the law to be exploited for financial gain,” said Molinelli.
When Atlas sent the requests demanding businesses update their database within 10 days, they were sent the week between Christmas and
New Years – a time when most businesses were closed – making it virtually impossible to meet the rigid 10-day deadline.
Now, PSIPC – a coalition of civic-minded businesses across industries such as real estate, credit reporting, background checks, legal services, nonprofits and more – is advocating for change. Their message is simple: Daniel’ s Law must be restored to its original, reasonable form.
Legal Pushback
A federal judge has already taken notice. In November 2024, U. S. District Court Judge Harvey Bartle ruled that the law’ s mandatory damages requirement is unconstitutional. To salvage the law, Judge Bartle interpreted Daniel’ s Law as including a negligence standard for evaluating a company’ s response to nondisclosure requests, holding a company liable for a violation only if it failed to exercise reasonable care in responding to requests under the law.
The U. S. Third Circuit Court of Appeals will soon hear arguments in a constitutional challenge to New Jersey’ s Daniel’ s Law.
“ Businesses do not have the time or the resources for this to play out in court,” said Russo.“ This requires a legislative solution that provides uniformity and certainty to people affected by the law.” To help spread awareness and support legislative reform, PSIPC has launched www. RestoreDanielsLaw. com.
Restoring the Law’ s Original Intent PSIPC is calling on lawmakers to address five key issues with the current law:
Disclosure: Restore the original definition of“ disclose,” to keep Daniel’ s Law focused on the public disclosure of covered information rather the mere possession of information in databases.
Verification: Import sensible mechanisms from the New Jersey data privacy law that allow businesses to verify a covered person’ s identity and requests.
Assignment: Revert to the original Daniel’ s Law, which contained no assignment of rights or claims.
Remedies: Allow courts to award injunctions, declaratory relief, and attorneys’ fees and costs – or authorize damages for violations of prior court orders.
Exemptions: Incorporate exemptions from the New Jersey data privacy law for regulated industries such as health care and privacy-protective practices.
“ Daniel’ s Law serves a noble purpose,” said Molinelli,“ but the law is broken.” 18 COMMERCE www. commercemagazinenj. com