This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. If you believe you qualify for protection under one of these laws, consult an attorney or your professional association in your state.
The Law That Started With a Tragedy
In July 2020, a man who had appeared before U.S. District Judge Esther Salas showed up at her New Jersey home disguised as a delivery driver and shot her son, Daniel Anderl, who died from his injuries. The shooter had found the family’s home address through public records and data broker sites. In response, New Jersey passed Daniel’s Law later that year, one of the strongest data-broker address-removal laws in the country.
What Daniel’s Law Actually Requires
Daniel’s Law lets covered individuals submit a written request to a data broker demanding that it stop disclosing their home address and unpublished home telephone number. The statute reaches active, formerly active, and retired judicial officers, prosecutors, and law enforcement officers, along with any immediate family member residing in the same household.[1]
The data broker then has 10 business days from receiving the notice, not ten calendar days, to stop disclosing the information.[1] That distinction matters if you are counting toward a deadline, because ten calendar days will usually expire before the statutory window actually does.
On damages the statute is unusually firm. A 2023 amendment changed “may award” to shall award, so a court is directed to award actual damages of not less than $1,000 for each violation, plus reasonable attorney’s fees and litigation costs, with punitive damages available on proof of willful or reckless disregard of the law.[1] The law also lets a covered person, or that person’s assignee, bring the action directly in Superior Court rather than waiting on a state agency to act.[1]
That enforcement teeth is what makes Daniel’s Law unusual, and it is also why the law is being fought over. Anyone planning to rely on it should know that the fight is not finished.
Its Constitutionality Is Still Being Litigated
After covered officers and judges assigned their claims to Atlas Data Privacy Corporation, dozens of suits were filed against data brokers and consolidated on appeal.[4] The brokers moved to dismiss on the ground that the statute is facially unconstitutional under the First Amendment. A federal district court in New Jersey denied those motions in 2024 and held the law facially constitutional, but it got there by reading a negligence standard into the damages provision, reasoning that strict liability in this context “would likely be unconstitutional.”[2] In May 2025, a bipartisan group of 42 state attorneys general, led by Ohio Attorney General Dave Yost, filed an amicus brief urging the Third Circuit to uphold the law.[3]
Then the reading the district court had relied on was taken away. On August 12, 2026, a unanimous New Jersey Supreme Court answered a question certified to it by the Third Circuit and held that Daniel’s Law “contains no mental state requirement” for claims seeking actual damages, meaning liability does not turn on fault at all.[2] That court was explicit that it was not deciding the constitutional question, writing that “[w]hether Daniel’s Law is constitutional . . . is for the Third Circuit to determine.”[2] The appeal remains pending and is listed as active before the Third Circuit.[4]
What that means in practice: the removal right is on the books and enforceable today, and New Jersey’s Attorney General has intervened to defend it.[2] But its survival is not settled law, so treat Daniel’s Law as one tool rather than your only one, and keep dated records of every request you send.
Who’s Actually Covered
The statutory class is defined by role: an active, formerly active, or retired judicial officer, prosecutor, or law enforcement officer, plus any immediate family member residing in the same household.[1] Note that “formerly active” and “retired” describe employment status, so leaving the job does not by itself end coverage. Because eligibility turns on those statutory definitions rather than on a general sense of being a public servant, it is worth confirming yours with an attorney or your professional association before relying on the law.
Other States Following New Jersey’s Lead
New Jersey was first, but it isn’t alone anymore. A number of other states have passed or are actively considering similar address-confidentiality protections specifically for judges, law enforcement, and other public officials, generally modeled on Daniel’s Law’s core mechanism: a written removal request, a short compliance window, and a private right of action or meaningful penalty for non-compliance. The specific list of covered professions and the compliance window varies by state, so if you’re a judge, prosecutor, or law enforcement officer outside New Jersey, check with your state attorney general’s office or professional association (such as your state’s judicial conference or police benevolent association) about whether your state has enacted its own version.
What This Doesn’t Cover
These laws are narrow by design, they protect a specific, high-risk category of public officials, not the general public. If you don’t fall into one of the covered categories, you don’t have the same ten-day compliance right or statutory damages. You still have the standard opt-out rights every consumer has under each data broker’s own removal process, and under broader state privacy laws like California’s CCPA or Colorado’s CPA, but not the accelerated, enforceable mechanism Daniel’s Law provides. California residents do now have something faster than working through brokers one at a time: the state’s Delete Request and Opt-out Platform (DROP) takes a single request and applies it to every registered data broker, and brokers have been required to begin processing those requests since August 1, 2026.[5]
There is active advocacy to expand similar protections to a broader set of at-risk individuals, including domestic violence survivors, but as of now the covered categories remain specific to judges, prosecutors, and law enforcement.
What to Do If You’re Covered
- Confirm your eligibility with your professional association or an attorney familiar with Daniel’s Law or your state’s equivalent.
- Submit a written removal request to each data broker holding your information, citing the specific statute. Your professional association may have a template request letter already prepared.
- Document non-compliance. If a broker doesn’t comply within the required window, that failure is the basis for a claim, keep records of your original request and the date it was sent.
- Consider pairing this with a standard removal service for brokers or information categories the statute doesn’t specifically cover. See our comparison of Incogni, DeleteMe, Optery, and Aura.
The Bottom Line
Daniel’s Law exists because the ordinary data broker opt-out process, useful as it is for most people, wasn’t fast or enforceable enough for individuals facing real, documented threats. If you’re a judge, prosecutor, or law enforcement officer, this law (or your own state’s version of it) gives you a real, penalty-backed removal right that the general public doesn’t have. Use it.
Sources
- N.J.S.A. 56:8-166.1 (current text, as amended), quoted in full in Atlas Data Privacy Corp. v. We Inform, LLC (A-8-25), Supreme Court of New Jersey, slip op. at 27-28. njcourts.gov
- Atlas Data Privacy Corp. v. We Inform, LLC (A-8-25), Supreme Court of New Jersey, argued March 17, 2026, decided August 12, 2026 (holding Daniel’s Law contains no mental state requirement for actual damages, and that constitutionality is for the Third Circuit). njcourts.gov
- Singer, Chun, Stempson & deLorimier. Multistate Coalition Files Amicus Brief in Support of Anti-Doxing Law, May 23, 2025 (42 attorneys general, led by Ohio AG Dave Yost). kelleydrye.com
- Atlas Data Privacy Corp. v. We Inform, LLC, No. 25-1555 (3d Cir.), case docket and status. fire.org
- California Privacy Protection Agency. Data Broker Registry and the Delete Request and Opt-out Platform (DROP). cppa.ca.gov
