New Jersey's highest court on Wednesday ruled that a state law designed to protect court and law enforcement officials from disclosure of their home addresses and other personal information does not require plaintiffs seeking damages to prove a defendant acted with any particular intent.
The issue before the New Jersey Supreme Court centered on whether a plaintiff needs to establish a defendant's mental state to pursue actual damages under the law. Billions of dollars in potential claims are at stake in lawsuits over compliance with the law.
The state court ruled that the law does not require proof that a data broker or other defendant intended to violate the statute, only that a defendant did not comply after a take-down notice was sent.
The defendants argue the law imposes "strict liability" even for actions taken with reasonable care or by mistake, violating the U.S. Constitution's free-speech protections under the First Amendment.
The law requires a showing of “willful or reckless disregard” for the award of punitive damages, which can be higher than actual damages.
The Philadelphia-based 3rd Circuit had asked the New Jersey high court to rule on the law's requirements as it considers a case brought by a data-deletion firm and others accusing technology and information platforms of violating the state provision.
The case now returns to the 3rd Circuit, which on Wednesday asked the lawyers to address the impact of the Supreme Court's order.
A lead plaintiff, software firm Atlas Data Privacy, has been assigned claims by more than 19,000 people eligible for protection under the law.
Atlas and a lawyer for the company did not immediately respond to requests for comment.
Thomson Reuters, the parent company of Reuters, is also among the defendants in the underlying litigation in federal court in New Jersey. The defendants have denied any wrongdoing.
Thomson Reuters said in a statement that it welcomed the ruling and remains committed to the responsible handling of public data. "We will continue to argue before the Third Circuit that the statute, as written, is overbroad and violates the First Amendment," the company said.
New Jersey adopted the privacy law in 2020 following the fatal shooting of the 20-year-old son of U.S. District Judge Esther Salas at her New Jersey home by a disgruntled lawyer.
Lawyers for Atlas and the New Jersey attorney general’s office had argued that the law requires proof that people who violate it acted with negligence.
“While we disagree with the court's reading of Daniel's Law on the specific question before it, we look forward to continuing to defend this critical protection for public servants and their families against the data brokers trying to get it struck down,” the attorney general’s office said in a statement.
Ezra Rosenberg, director of appellate advocacy at the ACLU of New Jersey, said the ACLU agreed with the court’s ruling.
The court’s conclusion, however, “raises serious questions as to whether the Law violates the First Amendment, unless it is construed to contain an appropriately high mental state standard,” Rosenberg said.
The case is Atlas Data Privacy Corp v. We Inform LLC, New Jersey Supreme Court, No. A-8-25.
For plaintiffs: Eric Palmer of Boies Schiller Flexner
For defendants: Michael Berry of Ballard Spahr
Read more:
NJ judge whose son was killed warns against weakening state data privacy laws
Litigation funder backs cases over NJ law shielding info on judges, officials
New Jersey defends privacy law shielding judges, prosecutors
