New Jersey's Top Court Must Take Its Opportunity to Anchor Daniel's Law to Reality

Litigation attorney Paul Bond authored a column for the New Jersey Law Journal expressing his thoughts on how the New Jersey Supreme Court should interpret Daniel's Law, the state's judicial privacy statute. He describes how plaintiffs have used vague takedown demands and the law's $1,000 per violation damages provision to pursue multimillion-dollar claims without proof of actual harm, and why the court's guidance on whether any mens rea is required will be critical. Mr. Bond argues that treating Daniel's Law as a strict liability statute would raise serious due process and First Amendment concerns, contending that at minimum a negligence standard is needed to align the law with its original public safety purpose rather than punitive windfalls.

READ: New Jersey's Top Court Must Take Its Opportunity to Anchor Daniel's Law to Reality (Subscription required)