Data Broker Radaris Loses Domains in Landmark Privacy Lawsuit

Daniel’s Law Enforcement and Court-Ordered Domain Transfers

Enacted to protect public safety, Daniel’s Law permits state law enforcement officials, judges, government personnel, and their families to demand the complete removal of their personal details from commercial people-search services. The statute carries penalties of $1,000 per violation for companies that ignore removal requests. Atlas Data Privacy Corp sued Radaris in February 2024, asserting the data broker repeatedly ignored removal notices, according to court records cited by KrebsOnSecurity.

When attorneys for Radaris failed to mount an adequate defense, the New Jersey court entered a default judgment in favor of the plaintiffs. Matt Adkisson, president and CEO of Atlas, stated that the company utilized procedural delays and shell companies across multiple international jurisdictions to evade accountability. Court records show the judge ultimately ordered the transfer of radaris.com and 13 other related data broker domains to Atlas. The primary radaris.com homepage now redirects visitors to an official notice explaining the court-ordered transfer.

Corporate Shell Games and Co-Founder Identities

Investigation into the ownership structure revealed a complex network of corporate entities operated by Russian-born brothers Igor and Dmitry Lubarsky, who reside in Massachusetts, as detailed by KrebsOnSecurity. Following the initial lawsuit, attorneys for the Lubarsky brothers threatened legal action for defamation, claiming the true owners were Ukrainians living in Ukraine. However, subsequent investigative reporting and admissions from Radaris attorney Val Gurvits of the Boston Law Group confirmed that the company had invented a fictitious CEO named “Gary Norden,” using the pseudonym in press releases to court investors.

Internal emails and documents obtained by Atlas through litigation—totaling more than 10,000 messages—confirm that nominal legal entities including Radaris America Inc., Bitseller Expert Limited, Digital Orbit Corp, Core Solutions Group Inc., and Veripages Inc. are administered by the same small group of individuals from a single virtual office address. According to Atlas summaries, the primary sites generate substantial revenue, with radaris.com pulling in roughly $42,000 monthly and Veripages.com earning approximately $45,000 monthly through partnerships with marketing firms like the Lifetime Value Company. Additional revenue streams included up to $25,000 monthly from Onerep, a privacy service that helps individuals remove personal data from people-search sites.

Constitutional Challenges and the Broader Legal Landscape

Legal battles surrounding Daniel’s Law extend far beyond the Radaris case. Approximately 150 consumer data broker firms have mounted a collective constitutional challenge against the New Jersey statute, arguing in federal court that the law is overly broad and violates the First Amendment. At least 70 of those lawsuits were moved to federal court, with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit yet to issue a final ruling in a dispute widely expected to reach the U.S. Supreme Court. Meanwhile, a federal district court ruled West Virginia’s version of Daniel’s Law facially unconstitutional under the First Amendment in August 2025, even as at least 14 other states adopt similar legislation.

Privacy experts point to the broader regulatory gap that allows data brokers to continue operating. Justin Sherman, author of the forthcoming book “The Middlemen,” noted that state privacy laws routinely exempt records considered public or government documents, such as voting registries, property filings, and motor vehicle records.

Most everyday individuals examining Daniel’s Law will naturally conclude that protection should extend to everyone rather than being limited exclusively to judges and police officers. But we don’t need more wake-up calls.

Victor Worms, an attorney representing the defendants, stated that motions have been filed to vacate the default judgment.

Because a nonexistent entity lacks the legal standing required to initiate or defend against a lawsuit, we have submitted a motion to invalidate that default judgment on the basis that it is legally void. Furthermore, we plan to pursue all available appellate options since we maintain that the seizure of Radaris.com constitutes an improper forfeiture that violates multiple constitutional guarantees.

Victor Worms