Court strikes down West Virginia's version of NJ's Daniel's Law

A federal appeals court has struck down the part of West Virginia's Daniel's Law that let judges, prosecutors, public defenders and law enforcement officers sue people-search companies for publishing their home addresses and phone numbers. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit ruled on October 27, 2026 that the provision violates the First Amendment. New Jersey's Daniel's Law is a separate statute, and this ruling does not strike it down.

If the name looks familiar, that is not a mix-up. New Jersey passed the first Daniel's Law in November 2020. It is named for Daniel Anderl, the son of U.S. District Judge Esther Salas, who was killed at the family's New Jersey home in 2020 by a man who had found their address online (Confirmed, New Jersey State Library). West Virginia passed its own version in 2021 as part of SB 470, in a section that carries the same name (Reported, The Record and Bloomberg Law). Other states have passed laws in this family too, and this ruling is the clearest court decision yet on which designs hold up.

What the court decided

The case is Jackson v. Thomson Reuters America Corp., No. 25-2121, decided together with related appeals including Jackson v. Whitepages, Inc. (Confirmed, Fourth Circuit opinion). A retired West Virginia law enforcement officer sued several people-search providers, including Whitepages, LexisNexis Risk Solutions and Thryv, alleging they published his home address and unpublished phone number online without his permission (Confirmed, court record).

The provision at issue, W. Va. Code § 5A-8-24(e), bars disclosing the home address or unpublished personal phone number of covered officials, including active and retired officers, without written permission (Confirmed, statute). In August 2025, the federal district court for the Northern District of West Virginia dismissed the suits and held the provision facially unconstitutional (Confirmed, district court). A three-judge Fourth Circuit panel, in an opinion by Judge Paul Niemeyer joined by Judges Steven Agee and Pamela Harris, has now affirmed that ruling (Reported, The Record and Law360).

The panel treated the law as a content-based restriction on speech and applied strict scrutiny. It found the provision was not the least restrictive way to serve the state's interest in protecting officials, in part because it had no notice requirement and imposed liability automatically, without first giving a publisher the chance to remove the information (Reported, The Record and Law360). Commentators have read the opinion as leaving room for a narrower law that applies only after a covered person makes a specific removal demand (Reported).

What it means beyond West Virginia

Several states have passed laws modeled on New Jersey's Daniel's Law. New Jersey's version is built around a written takedown request: covered people, or companies acting for them, ask a site to stop disclosing the information, and liability depends on what the site does after that notice. A federal district court upheld New Jersey's law as constitutional in November 2024, and related appeals are still pending in the Third Circuit (Confirmed, court records).

The Fourth Circuit's ruling binds federal courts in West Virginia, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina and South Carolina. It does not decide the New Jersey cases, but it draws a clear line between laws that impose liability automatically and laws that work through notice and removal. Expect that distinction to come up in the pending New Jersey appeals and in any state drafting a new version.

What covered officials can do now

1. Use opt-out processes directly. The ruling removes a damages claim under the West Virginia provision. It does not stop people-search sites from honoring removal requests. Search your name on the major people-search sites and request removal of listings that show your home address or phone number.
2. Recheck after removal. Listings often reappear when sites refresh their data from public records. Check again every few months.
3. Check whether another state's law covers you. If you live or work in New Jersey or another state with its own version of Daniel's Law, that state's law and its notice process still apply.
4. Californians have another tool. California residents can use the state's Delete Request and Opt-Out Platform (DROP) to send one request to all registered data brokers.