Dear TNPA Member,

We are writing to update you on TNPA’s work on New Jersey’s Daniel’s Law, enacted in stages over the last four years, with the most problematic aspects in 2023. Unhappily, some of you have discovered the law the hard way when you were served with a lawsuit.

The intent of the law is to enable law enforcement and criminal justice personnel to have their personal information (phone numbers and home addresses) quickly and easily removed from public access. But the overbroad reach and poor drafting of the law, and its private right of action, have made it a magnet for lawyers shopping for a windfall.

The litigation, 130+ suits filed to date, does next to nothing to advance the important cause of protecting a police officer’s privacy. It will do plenty to enrich law firms while also imposing substantial costs on data businesses who, by any rational assessment, present no threat to anyone’s safety and security.

The suits are filed ten business days after removal requests are sent, the time allotted for a response, to a firm’s privacy email address. The requests are sent one request per email, 14,000 to 30,000 emails in close succession, on Day Zero. The approach virtually guarantees that no one can reply to all the requests within the ten days allotted.

We are in touch with firms being sued and lawyers representing the supposed victims. We are also in touch with the lawyers advising TNPA nonprofit and commercial members. Our purpose is to open lines of communication so that facts, tactics, and legal opinions might be shared.

The surest path to relief is legislative action to preserve the law’s purpose while repairing the elements making the law a trial lawyer’s dream. To say this will be a hard go is an understatement. What legislator will want to be in the spotlight for tinkering with a law intended to protect law enforcement and justice system employees from real threats and actual harm?

We are in touch with people on the ground in NJ who believe there may be some chance, however slight, to get a quick legislative repair. We should know more about this soon. Meanwhile, we are in line to review curative legislative language.

We will be reaching out to nonprofit members to prepare the argument that unintended harm they may suffer, such as limited mail contact with NJ residents, can be, and should be, easily prevented.

We will continue to update you with noteworthy developments.

Robert Tigner

Regulatory Counsel