.jpg)
18,000 New Jersey Law Enforcement Class Action Against LexisNexis: A Battle Over Privacy and Retaliation
How LexisNexis’s Alleged Retaliation Against Law Enforcement Exposed a Clash Between Data Practices and Privacy Rights
In March 2024, a significant legal battle emerged in New Jersey as over 18,000 law enforcement personnel, including active and retired officers, prosecutors, and judges, filed a class-action lawsuit against LexisNexis Risk Data Management, LLC. The plaintiffs accused the data analytics giant of retaliating against their attempts to protect their personal information under New Jersey’s Daniel’s Law by imposing unauthorized credit freezes and falsely reporting them as identity theft victims. This case, while not stemming from a traditional data breach, has raised serious questions about LexisNexis’s handling of sensitive data and its compliance with state privacy laws, potentially exposing vulnerable individuals to further risks.
Background: Daniel’s Law and Privacy Rights
Daniel’s Law, enacted in New Jersey in November 2020 (P.L. 2020, c. 125) and later amended in 2023 (P.L. 2023, c. 113), was a response to the tragic murder of Daniel Anderl, the son of U.S. District Judge Esther Salas, by a gunman who targeted her family using publicly available personal data. The law prohibits the disclosure of home addresses and unpublished telephone numbers of “covered persons”—active or retired judicial officers, law enforcement officers, prosecutors, and their immediate family members—upon their written request. It mandates that data brokers like LexisNexis remove such information within 10 business days of receiving a takedown request, with penalties including damages of at least $1,000 per violation, plus punitive damages and attorney fees.
The plaintiffs, many of whom had invoked their rights under Daniel’s Law between December 2023 and January 2024, sought to shield their personal details from public exposure, citing safety concerns inherent to their professions. However, instead of complying fully, LexisNexis allegedly took punitive actions that disrupted their financial lives.
Details of the Allegations
According to the lawsuit filed on March 4, 2024, in Bergen County Superior Court (Case No. BER-L-001424-24), LexisNexis retaliated against the plaintiffs’ data removal requests in two major ways:
- Unauthorized Credit Freezes: LexisNexis allegedly placed security freezes on the plaintiffs’ credit reports without their consent. These freezes, intended to prevent identity theft by blocking access to credit files, were not requested by the plaintiffs and were unrelated to Daniel’s Law compliance. The company reportedly informed the affected individuals via letters that these freezes could “delay, interfere with, or prohibit the timely approval of applications” for credit, insurance, or other services—consequences the plaintiffs argue were retaliatory and harmful.
- False Identity Theft Reports: In addition to the freezes, LexisNexis is accused of falsely reporting the plaintiffs as victims of identity theft to credit bureaus. This misrepresentation allegedly tarnished their credit histories, potentially affecting their ability to secure loans, mortgages, or employment. The lawsuit claims these reports were “complete fabrications” designed to punish the plaintiffs for exercising their legal rights.
The complaint further alleges that LexisNexis failed to remove the requested personal information—such as names, home addresses, and detailed family reports, including data on minor children as young as 13—from its databases. Instead, it continued to make this information available to subscribers, violating Daniel’s Law. When plaintiffs contacted LexisNexis to lift the freezes or correct the false reports, the company reportedly acknowledged the potential adverse impacts but refused to act promptly, engaging in what the lawsuit calls “a prolonged effort to thwart Plaintiffs’ efforts to lift these credit freezes.”
Implications of the Case
This incident, while not a data breach in the conventional sense, suggests a mishandling of sensitive data that could amplify privacy risks. By freezing credit and misreporting identity theft, LexisNexis allegedly created new vulnerabilities—such as financial instability or exposure to creditors—while failing to address the original safety concerns prompting the takedown requests. The case also highlights a broader tension between data brokers’ business models, which rely on aggregating and selling personal information, and growing legal protections for individual privacy.
The plaintiffs, represented by the Newark-based law firm Genova Burns, seek damages under Daniel’s Law, including statutory awards, punitive damages, and attorney fees, as well as court orders compelling LexisNexis to comply with the law and reverse its retaliatory actions. The class includes a diverse group of law enforcement personnel, with two pseudonymous lead plaintiffs—an active police officer and a retired officer—symbolizing the broader affected community.
LexisNexis’s Response
LexisNexis has not commented extensively on the litigation due to its pending status. However, a company spokeswoman, Kara Grady, told Asbury Park Press in March 2024, “We care deeply about the safety of judges, police and all covered persons under the federal and New Jersey’s Daniel’s Law and we act at all times to protect the dissemination of protected information.” The company’s website notes that opt-out requests under privacy laws may result in security freezes to limit data availability for fraud prevention—a policy the plaintiffs argue was misapplied as retaliation rather than protection.
Current Updates on the Case (as of March 23, 2025)
As of March 23, 2025, the case remains active in Bergen County Superior Court, with several developments:
- Initial Filings and Motions: The lawsuit was filed on March 4, 2024, and served on LexisNexis shortly thereafter. Early proceedings have focused on jurisdictional matters and the certification of the class, given the large number of plaintiffs (over 18,000). No public rulings on class certification have been reported by this date.
- Public and Legislative Attention: The case has drawn significant attention, with U.S. Representative Josh Gottheimer (D-NJ) citing it in a May 2024 ROI-NJ opinion piece as evidence of data brokers undermining public safety. He called for federal action to bolster privacy protections, suggesting the lawsuit could influence broader policy debates.
- Related Litigation: A separate February 2024 class action by Atlas Data Privacy Corporation against LexisNexis and 117 other data brokers, representing 20,000 law enforcement officials for noncompliance with Daniel’s Law, remains ongoing. The March lawsuit builds on this earlier effort, focusing specifically on retaliation rather than just noncompliance.
- Discovery Phase: Legal analysts on ClassAction.org suggest the case is likely in the discovery phase as of early 2025, with both sides exchanging evidence. No trial date has been publicly set, and settlement discussions, if any, remain confidential.
- Lack of Major Rulings: No significant court decisions—such as dismissals, summary judgments, or injunctions—have been reported by March 23, 2025, per accessible news and legal databases like Bloomberg Law and Courthouse News Service. The case’s complexity, involving thousands of plaintiffs and nuanced statutory interpretation, may delay resolution.
The case’s outcome could set a precedent for how data brokers handle privacy requests under similar state laws, with potential ramifications for LexisNexis’s operations nationwide.
Follow me on X All truths are easy to understand once they are discovered; the point is to discover them.-Galileo
Disclaimer, rights of logos placed here are for recognition for the blind or eyesight problems on this blog. 😎 Be sure to click on all the Blue Links.
If you find any errors please let me know. I am not funded by anyone for any opinions I may have. You can buy me a coffee here and it's very much appreciated. Thank you!
Image: "NJSDA Police Patch V05 (002)" by -NJSD111- is licensed under CC BY-SA 4.0. To view a copy of this license, visit https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/?ref=openverse.
