Judge: US Voter Registration Law Doesn't Preempt NJ Daniel's Law, But FCRA Partly Does
A federal judge ruled Monday that New Jersey’s Daniel’s Law isn't preempted by the National Voter Registration Act (NVRA), refusing to dismiss two voter registration record websites from a consolidated constitutionality case about the statute. However, Judge Harvey Bartle found for the U.S. District Court for New Jersey that the state law is inconsistent with a provision of the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) and dismissed part of the complaint.
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.
Additionally, the judge said more information is needed to see whether Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act (CDA) preempts the charges against several other data brokers involved in the suit, so those claims remain pending.
Daniel’s Law -- which is aimed at protecting the personal information of judicial and law enforcement officers, child protective investigators and certain family members -- allows covered individuals to request that data brokers delete their information. The measure 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 district court judge in June denied other motions to dismiss the consolidated case (1:24-cv-04037), where the plaintiff is Atlas Privacy (see 2506300065). Previously, the New Jersey Supreme Court rejected a journalist’s First Amendment challenge to Daniel’s Law (see 2506180038)
In the latest challenge, Restoration of America and the Voter Reference Foundation alleged that Daniel’s Law is inconsistent with the NVRA and thus can't be applied to them. Bartle disagreed, saying that “Daniel’s Law creates no obstacle to the aims of the NVRA.”
The statute “allows but does not require individuals to protect their safety by requesting that their home addresses and unlisted telephone numbers not be made available by private actors,” he said. “It does not prohibit the state of New Jersey from generally making available voter information to anyone who requests it. In contrast, the NVRA requires states to provide records to the public regarding compliance with election requirements.”
Four other data brokers -- We Inform, Infomatics, The People Searchers and Smarty -- also moved to dismiss the complaints against them, arguing that Section 230 of the CDA preempts Atlas’ claims. Bartle raised doubts during oral argument Aug. 11 (see 2508110035).
“At oral argument on the motions to dismiss, defendants candidly conceded that they do not operate platforms where third parties simply post information,” Bartle said in his memorandum Monday, noting that they “seek out and compensate others for providing the home addresses appearing on their websites.”
Even so, “the court has insufficient evidence in the record to determine whether they develop” the information, so “whether they have immunity under the CDA must await discovery,” he added, also denying their motion to dismiss.
However, Bartle ruled that “to the extent that Daniel’s Law allows covered persons to remove their home addresses from lists provided by credit reporting agencies for firm offers of credit or insurance, it is preempted by FCRA.” He granted credit bureau company Innovis' motion to dismiss the complaint "to this extent only."
The court scheduled a status conference in the case for Sept. 12 at 10 a.m. at the U.S. Courthouse in Camden, New Jersey.