Court orders Radaris domains transferred to plaintiffs in Daniel's Law case

A New Jersey court has ordered the transfer of radaris.com and more than a dozen other people-search domains to Atlas Data Privacy Corp, the plaintiff in a suit alleging the data broker ignored removal requests protected by state law [1].

The case began in February 2024, when Atlas sued Radaris under Daniel’s Law — a New Jersey statute that lets state law enforcement officials, government personnel, judges and their families demand complete removal of their personal information from commercial data brokers and people-search sites. The law provides for fines of $1,000 per violation when a broker ignores a valid removal request [1].

On 26 August, the judge found that the defendants had been given multiple chances to appear and defend the claims against them and had not done so, and ordered the domains handed over [1]. radaris.com still surfaces in search results for U.S. residents by name, but the site no longer sells personal dossiers; its homepage now carries a notice from Atlas [1].

Who is affected

Anyone whose records were aggregated across the Radaris network. The transfer removes one large front-end for that data, but it does not, on the evidence in the reporting, delete the underlying records or the infrastructure behind them. The source does not state what happened to the data itself.

People covered by Daniel’s Law — New Jersey officers, government staff, judges and their family members — are the direct beneficiaries of the judgment. Everyone else gains only the indirect effect of one domain going dark.

Defenders should read this as an availability change in a well-known OSINT source, not as a reduction in exposure. Data broker aggregates feed pretexting, account recovery attacks, SIM-swap preparation and physical targeting of named individuals. One domain changing hands does not change that threat model.

How the case got here

The reporting describes a long pattern of procedural delay. Attorneys for Radaris appeared at the last minute in the original matter and argued that Atlas had failed to serve the real owners and operators of Radaris and several sister companies [1]. Atlas re-filed in June 2025 with a much larger set of defendant entities [1].

Atlas president and CEO Matt Adkisson described the intervening period as an “island-hopping phase”: privacy policies changed frequently and new corporate entities surfaced in the Marshall Islands, the British Virgin Islands and Seychelles [1]. According to Adkisson, defence lawyers would tell the court that a particular entity merely operated the domains and was the proper party to sue, then discard that entity as judgment approached while arguing the entities that actually owned the domains bore no responsibility [1]. When Radaris’s terms of service named a Marshall Islands manager, Atlas hired an investigator there and reported the entity did not yet exist [1].

There is precedent for the domain-seizure remedy and for it being undone. In a 2017 class action that Radaris initially lost because it never contested the claim, a court ordered Verisign to transfer radaris.com to plaintiffs who could not collect on a $7.5 million default judgment. Attorney Val Gurvits appealed on the grounds that the actual domain owner — a Cyprus company called Bitseller Expert Limited — had not been named, making the transfer a due process violation. The judge halted the transfer and told the plaintiffs they could refile; they never did. The stated operator subsequently changed from Bitseller to Andtop Company, formed in the Marshall Islands in October 2020 [1].

The current judgment is also being contested. Attorney Victor Worms, who now has the matter, said the transfer followed a default judgment against radaris.com, which he characterised as not a legal entity, and has moved to vacate on the grounds that a non-entity cannot sue or be sued. He said appeals are planned on the basis that the transfer amounts to a forfeiture [1]. Raj Parikh of PEM Law, who handles most of Atlas’s Daniel’s Law litigation, said the defendants had previously won by attrition as opposing counsel gave up [1].

Atlas says litigation has produced more than 10,000 emails and documents that it says corroborate earlier reporting on who owns and operates the Radaris companies [1]. That earlier reporting identified Massachusetts-based brothers Igor and Dmitry Lubarsky as the company’s co-founders. Attorneys for the brothers disputed it, threatened a defamation suit unless it was withdrawn, called the reporting badly inaccurate and said the true owners were Ukrainians living in Ukraine [1]. The outlet stood by its account, and reported that Radaris’s then-attorney acknowledged the “Gary Norden” CEO name was invented and had been quoted in press releases aimed at potential investors [1].

This story currently rests on a single outlet’s reporting. The full list of transferred domains and the status of the motion to vacate are not stated in the source.

What to do

• If you are covered by Daniel’s Law, keep filing removal requests and keep dated evidence of each one. The statute’s per-violation penalty is what made this case possible, and proof of a request and non-compliance is the load-bearing artefact [1].
• Do not treat the transfer as deletion. Re-check whether your records still appear on other people-search properties in the same network and on unrelated brokers.
• Watch for the same catalogues reappearing under new domains. The reporting documents entity substitution as a routine tactic here [1].
• For executive protection and high-risk staff, keep broker exposure on a recurring review cycle rather than treating removal as a one-off project.
• Assume attackers already hold copies of broker data when designing account recovery and help-desk verification. Knowledge-based checks built on address, relatives or prior employers are not a control.
• If you rely on people-search sites for investigative work, expect availability to change without notice and record your sources at the time of collection.