Federal Judge Declares W.Va. Daniel's Law Unconstitutional, Tosses Suit
A federal court dismissed a case against several data brokers accused of violating West Virginia's Daniel's Law. Judge Michael Urbanski ruled the 2021 statutory provision the plaintiff relied on -- which allows certain public servants to request data brokers delete their personal information from their public websites -- is unconstitutional.
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
Privacy Daily provides accurate coverage of newsworthy developments in data protection legislation, regulation, litigation, and enforcement for privacy professionals responsible for ensuring effective organizational data privacy compliance.
Plaintiff Michael Jackson filed class-action complaints, later consolidated into case 24-00102, against several data brokers on behalf of himself and other judicial and law enforcement officers whose information is available on the brokers' “people search” websites.
The brokers, including PeopleConnect, argue Daniel's Law is unconstitutional under the First Amendment "because it is a content-based regulation of speech that cannot survive strict scrutiny," and violates the 14th Amendment because it is vague.
"The court agrees that [the statute] regulates speech based on its content" and "is not narrowly tailored," the judge wrote in a decision published Tuesday. "Indeed, comparing West Virginia’s Daniel’s Law to the many other state and federal statutes aimed at the same legislative objective provides a helpful illustration of the ways in which West Virginia’s statute is far from the least restrictive means of achieving West Virginia’s undeniably compelling interest in protecting its public servants from harassment and violence."
However, he said, "the court is well aware that it has analyzed [the provision in question] of West Virginia’s Daniel’s Law in this opinion without aid of any interpretation of the provision by West Virginia’s courts or any briefing from the state’s perspective." But "no amount of due deference to the West Virginia Legislature and to its undoubtedly compelling interest in enhancing the safety of judicial and law enforcement officers can justify permitting this case to proceed against defendants, infringing their freedom to speak without content-based restrictions in violation of the First and Fourteenth Amendments," Urbanski added.
West Virginia’s Daniel’s Law is one of several versions that state legislatures crafted after the 2020 murder of U.S. District Judge Esther Salas’ son, Daniel Anderl, by a litigant who had practiced in Salas' courtroom and found her home address online (see 2503110077). New Jersey, where Salas is from, was the first to pass Daniel’s Law in the wake of the tragedy.
The New Jersey version of the statute was amended in 2023 to allow third parties to bring suits on behalf of covered persons, which some privacy lawyers argue has led to “abuse” of the statute (see 2504040031). The U.S. District Court for New Jersey recently heard oral argument concerning the law's legality (see 2508110035).
Other state legislators are looking to replicate Daniel's Law, or even expand its scope, in the wake of the shooting deaths last month of former Minnesota House Speaker Melissa Hortman (D) and her husband and the attempted killing of John Hoffman (D), a Minnesota senator, and his wife (see 2503280028 and 2507030055).