Overview: Radaris Domains Seized in Privacy Battle
The prominent consumer data broker Radaris.com has recently faced significant legal repercussions, resulting in the transfer of its primary domain and over a dozen associated people-search domains to plaintiffs in a lawsuit. The action stems from allegations that Radaris repeatedly violated a New Jersey privacy law, commonly known as Daniel’s Law, by failing to remove personal information of state law enforcement officials and other public personnel upon request. This case underscores the increasing legal pressure on data brokers regarding Daniel’s Law compliance for data brokers and highlights the severe consequences of non-adherence to privacy regulations, as detailed by KrebsOnSecurity.
Daniel’s Law Compliance and Consequences
Daniel’s Law, enacted in New Jersey, grants state law enforcement officials, government personnel, judges, and their families the right to have their personal information completely removed from commercial data brokers and people-search services. The statute imposes fines of $1,000 per violation against companies that disregard these removal requests. Atlas Data Privacy Corp., a firm dedicated to pursuing data brokers alleged to be in violation of this law, initiated a lawsuit against Radaris in February 2024. Despite repeated opportunities to defend against the claims, attorneys for Radaris engaged in delaying tactics and obfuscation regarding the company’s true ownership and country of origin. This led to a default judgment, culminating in the court-ordered transfer of the domains.
The judge in the New Jersey case determined that the defendants were given multiple chances to appear and contest the claims but failed to do so. This decisive legal action represents a significant victory for privacy advocates and establishes a precedent for holding data brokers accountable under such legislation. The Radaris domain seizure legal implications are substantial, demonstrating that legal frameworks designed to protect sensitive personal information carry real enforcement power.
Radaris’s Pattern of Obfuscation and Corporate Shell Games
Investigations into Radaris have revealed a long history of employing complex corporate structures and delaying tactics to avoid accountability. Founders Igor and Dmitry Lubarsky, Russian-born brothers operating from Massachusetts, managed a vast network of people-search companies. When confronted with legal challenges or journalistic scrutiny, Radaris attorneys, such as Val Gurvits, reportedly admitted to inventing a fictitious CEO, “Gary Norden,” and issued press releases quoting this fake executive while soliciting investors.
Further evidence suggests Radaris engaged in an “island-hopping phase,” frequently altering its privacy policies and establishing new entities in jurisdictions like the Marshall Islands, British Virgin Islands, and Seychelles. These actions, described by Matt Adkisson, President and CEO of Atlas, as a “shell game,” aimed to complicate legal proceedings by constantly shifting alleged ownership or management, making it difficult for plaintiffs to identify and serve the true responsible parties. This strategy, which historically allowed Radaris to win by attrition in previous lawsuits, proved ineffective against Atlas’s dedicated resources in this latest challenge to address New Jersey privacy law data removal for officials.
Actionable Recommendations for Data Brokers and Privacy Advocates
This outcome provides critical lessons for both data brokers and organizations advocating for data privacy:
- For Data Brokers: It is imperative to review and ensure strict compliance with all applicable state and federal privacy laws, particularly those protecting vulnerable populations like law enforcement officials. Ignoring data removal requests under specific statutes carries significant legal and financial risks, including the potential loss of core business assets like domain names.
- For Organizations and Individuals: Persistent legal action and dedicated resources, as demonstrated by Atlas Data Privacy Corp., can successfully challenge even well-established data brokers that exploit legal loopholes. Understanding the specific protections offered by state laws, such as Daniel’s Law, is crucial for seeking redress against data privacy violations.
Related: US Export Controls & Frontier AI: Securing Volatile Models, UK Cyber Security and Resilience Bill Targets High-Risk Vendors