New Jersey Supreme Court Holds Daniel’s Law Contains No Mens Rea Requirement – Setting Stage for Constitutionality Decision from the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit

On August 12, the New Jersey Supreme Court issued its long-awaited opinion in Atlas Data Privacy Corp., et al. v. We Inform LLC, et al. This case focuses on New Jersey’s Daniel’s Law and the two certified questions from the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, which is considering the law’s constitutionality.

The New Jersey Supreme Court reformulated the two certified questions into one it needed to decide: “What mental state, if any, is required to establish liability under Daniel’s Law, N.J.S.A. 56:8-166.1?”

After reviewing the underlying facts and the parties’ positions, the Court turned to interpreting Daniel’s Law itself and analyzed the statute’s enactment and amendments, language, legislative history, and common law privacy torts argued to be similar to Daniel’s Law. Based on its analysis, the Court held that Daniel’s Law “contains no mental state requirement for claims in which the plaintiff seeks actual damages under Section 166.1(c)(1).”

The case will now return to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, which will analyze whether Daniel’s Law is constitutional.

Opinion here: A-8-25 – Atlas Data Privacy Corp. v. We Inform, LLC, et al. (091145)(Statewide)

Clark Hill’s Data Privacy, Protection, and Cybersecurity team advises on emerging challenges related to today’s digital economy. We provide a holistic approach to identifying and mitigating cyber threats.

This publication is intended for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice or a solicitation to provide legal services. The information in this publication is not intended to create, and receipt of it does not constitute, a lawyer-client relationship. Readers should not act upon this information without seeking professional legal counsel. The views and opinions expressed herein represent those of the individual author(s) only and are not necessarily the views of Clark Hill PLC or Clark Hill Solicitors LLP. Although we attempt to ensure that postings on our website are complete, accurate, and up to date, we assume no responsibility for their completeness, accuracy, or timeliness.