# Appeals Court Invalidates West Virginia's 'Daniel's Law' In a landmark decision, the **4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals** on Tuesday ruled that a West Virginia law intended to shield law enforcement officers and judges from the over-exposure of their personal information is unconstitutional. The appeals court upheld an August 2025 lower court decision, effectively nullifying the state's unique version of **Daniel's Law**. ## The Purpose of Daniel's Law **Daniel's Law** statutes, adopted by over a dozen states, aim to prevent disgruntled individuals from obtaining officials' addresses and phone numbers, particularly through data brokers. The original impetus for these laws stemmed from the tragic 2020 killing of a New Jersey federal judge's son, whose address was located by a perpetrator using people-search sites. ## Unconstitutional Restrictions on Speech The panel of judges found that the West Virginia statute unlawfully restricts speech based solely on its topic, message, or subject matter – a practice known as content-based speech restriction. Furthermore, the court determined that the law held data brokers liable in too many circumstances. This decision marks a significant victory for data brokers, which have increasingly faced lawsuits over their business practices. ## Key Differences from Other States' Laws The appellate court's opinion highlighted that West Virginia's statute notably differs from similar laws in other states. Specifically, the West Virginia law does not require covered officials to alert businesses about improper data sharing before filing a lawsuit. It also mandates that those distributing data know they are doing so unlawfully, a provision the court argued allows too much leeway for lawsuits. The law mandated that data brokers obtain permission from judicial officers, prosecutors, public defenders, and law enforcement officers before publishing their personal data "under circumstances in which a reasonable person would believe that providing such information would expose another to harassment or risk of harm to life or property." It permitted lawsuits seeking up to $1,000 per violation, along with punitive damages. ## Implications for Data Brokers and Future Legislation The class-action lawsuit that led to this ruling was brought by a retired law enforcement officer and others in mid-2024, targeting online people-search services including **WhitePages**, **Thomson Reuters**, **LexisNexis**, and **PeopleConnect**. The lead plaintiff alleged these data brokers violated state law by publishing his personal information without consent. The appellate court not only sided with the data broker defendants in this specific case but also declared the law itself unconstitutional, giving the decision broad implications. According to a blog post from the international law firm **Clark Hill**, the West Virginia statute's lack of a prior notice requirement, omission of a knowledge standard, and broad content-based speech restrictions could render aggressive liability frameworks in other states vulnerable. It may also influence how states without a **Daniel's Law** draft future legislation. This ruling could also impact ongoing **Daniel's Law** litigation in **New Jersey** and similar statutes nationwide.