
George A. McGowan, III
Partner
732-568-8377 gmcgowan@sh-law.comClient Alert
Author: George A. McGowan, III
Date: July 21, 2026

Partner
732-568-8377 gmcgowan@sh-law.com
On June 30, 2026, Governor Mikie Sherrill signed Assembly Bill 5328 (P.L.2026, c.25), establishing a comprehensive regulatory framework governing data brokers and certain businesses that sell or license personal information. While the New Jersey data broker law has garnered attention for imposing annual registration fees that can reach $1.5 million, its significance extends well beyond its cost.
Unlike similar laws enacted in California, Vermont, and Connecticut, New Jersey’s law reaches not only traditional data brokers but also many businesses that have a direct relationship with consumers and subsequently transfer personal information to third parties. As a result, companies that have never considered themselves “data brokers” may nevertheless have new registration and compliance obligations.
Assembly Bill 5328 is significant not simply because it creates another privacy regulation, but because it expands the types of businesses subject to state oversight. Historically, state data broker laws have targeted companies that compile consumer information from multiple sources and sell it to third parties without a direct relationship with the individuals whose data they collect.
New Jersey took a different approach. Rather than limiting the statute to traditional data brokers, the Legislature created a second category of regulated entity known as a “data collector.” In doing so, it recognized that many businesses collect personal information directly from consumers and later monetize that information through commercial arrangements with third parties. Those businesses may never describe themselves as data brokers, yet the Legislature concluded that certain data commercialization practices warrant similar oversight.
The practical implication is that businesses should focus less on what they call themselves and more on how personal information moves through their organization. A company whose primary business is retail, software development, healthcare, manufacturing, or professional services may nonetheless fall within the law if it licenses or sells consumer information in a manner contemplated by the statute.
Understanding the statute begins with its two principal definitions. First, a “data broker” is generally a business that knowingly collects or purchases the personal information of consumers with whom it does not have a direct relationship and then sells or licenses that information to third parties. This definition largely aligns with the traditional understanding of a data broker.
The more consequential definition is that of a “data collector.” The statute generally describes a data collector as a business that has a direct relationship with consumers but later sells or licenses those consumers’ personal information to a data broker.
From a practical perspective, this distinction substantially expands the law’s reach. A business does not avoid regulation simply because it obtained personal information directly from its own customers. If that information later becomes part of a commercial transaction involving a data broker, the business may have obligations under the statute.
For many organizations, determining whether the law applies will require a careful review of existing business practices rather than a simple review of organizational structure. Customer information may be shared through marketing partnerships, affiliate relationships, customer analytics programs, lead-generation arrangements, loyalty platforms, or data licensing agreements that have developed over time. Some of those activities may warrant closer legal scrutiny under the new law.
Covered entities under the New Jersey data broker law must register annually with the State of New Jersey. Unlike other state data broker laws, New Jersey imposes a graduated registration fee based upon the number of New Jersey consumers whose personal information is sold or licensed. The annual fee ranges from $5,000 to $1.5 million, making it by far the most expensive data broker registration regime in the country.
The size of the fee underscores the importance of determining early whether registration is required. Even businesses for whom selling personal information is only an ancillary part of their operations should carefully evaluate whether the statute applies.
Among other provisions, A5328 also prohibits certain controllers of commercial internet websites and online services from selling sensitive personal data. The restrictions apply broadly and are intended to limit the commercial transfer of information that presents heightened privacy concerns.
Companies should carefully evaluate whether the categories of information they collect—including financial information, precise geolocation data, biometric information, health-related information, and other sensitive data defined under New Jersey privacy law—are implicated by these provisions.
Organizations that rely on advertising technology, analytics providers, data licensing arrangements, affiliate marketing, or customer monetization strategies should review existing practices to determine whether modifications will be necessary before the law becomes operative.
Many businesses have already devoted significant resources to complying with the New Jersey Data Privacy Act (NJDPA). However, compliance with the NJDPA does not necessarily satisfy the obligations imposed by A5328.
The NJDPA principally regulates how businesses collect, process, and safeguard personal information while providing consumers with various privacy rights. The new data broker law addresses a different concern, the commercial marketplace for personal information. It focuses on businesses that sell or license consumer data and imposes registration obligations, fee requirements, and restrictions on certain transactions involving sensitive information.
Accordingly, a company may be:
Accordingly, businesses should view the legislation as a separate compliance obligation rather than an extension of existing privacy requirements.
The new law authorizes enforcement by the New Jersey Attorney General and reflects the Legislature’s continued emphasis on regulating the commercial market for consumer information. Businesses that fail to determine whether they are subject to the law—or that continue existing data-sharing practices without evaluating the statute’s requirements—could face regulatory scrutiny, enforcement actions, and significant financial exposure.
Although implementing guidance may clarify certain aspects of the statute, companies should not wait for enforcement activity before assessing their obligations. Early compliance efforts are generally less costly and less disruptive than responding to a government investigation.
The law’s effective dates provide businesses with an opportunity to prepare, but that window should not be viewed as an invitation to wait. To get a head start on compliance, in-house counsel and business leaders should begin evaluating several threshold questions:
For many organizations, the answers to these questions will require coordination among legal, compliance, information technology, marketing, and business operations personnel.
Scarinci Hollenbeck is currently working with clients to determine how they may be impacted by the new data broker law. We encourage all New Jersey businesses to not only review their potential new compliance obligations, but also conduct a comprehensive review of their data governance practices.
New Jersey’s enactment of A5328 is part of a broader trend toward increased regulation of the commercial data marketplace. As states continue to expand privacy legislation beyond traditional consumer rights statutes, businesses should expect greater scrutiny of how personal information is monetized, shared, and licensed. Companies that establish comprehensive data governance programs now will be better positioned to respond to future regulatory developments. For guidance, contact us.
No Aspect of the advertisement has been approved by the Supreme Court. Results may vary depending on your particular facts and legal circumstances.

Congress has taken a significant step toward delaying the sweeping federal restrictions on intoxicating hemp products scheduled to take effect this November. On August 8, 2026, the U.S. Senate approved a short-term federal funding measure that includes a hemp ban delay, postponing the implementation of most new federal hemp restrictions for approximately one month, from […]
Author: Daniel T. McKillop

Disputes surrounding New Jersey data centers are intensifying as the State positions itself as a leader in artificial intelligence, cloud computing, and advanced technology infrastructure. Recent proceedings in Vineland and ongoing litigation in Monroe Township illustrate the growing tension among local land-use control, energy concerns, environmental impacts, and statewide economic development objectives. The outcomes of […]
Author: Daniel T. McKillop

On August 5, New Jersey entered the 90 days before the November 3, 2026 general election. For incumbent officials who are on the ballot, that date activated a longstanding ELEC regulation, N.J.A.C. 19:25-10.10, under which NJ election communications rules can treat routine governmental updates as reportable political activity. Our Public Law group first covered this […]
Author: Mark Tabakin

Industry Faces Continued Uncertainty Ahead of the November 2026 Deadline The U.S. Senate has introduced a funding measure that would temporarily delay implementation of sweeping federal hemp restrictions scheduled to take effect on November 12, 2026. While the proposal provides a potential short-term reprieve for hemp-derived cannabinoid manufacturers, retailers, distributors, and investors, it does not […]
Author: Daniel T. McKillop

Update (August 2026): For the latest developments in this matter, including the Vineland Planning Board’s review of a self-powered AI campus and Monroe Township’s motion to dismiss, see our updated client alert. New Jersey municipalities are moving aggressively to keep data centers out, and developers are beginning to push back in court. Within the span […]
Author: Daniel T. McKillop

On June 30, 2026, Governor Mikie Sherrill signed Assembly Bill 5328 (P.L.2026, c.25), establishing a comprehensive regulatory framework governing data brokers and certain businesses that sell or license personal information. While the New Jersey data broker law has garnered attention for imposing annual registration fees that can reach $1.5 million, its significance extends well beyond […]
Author: George McGowan
No Aspect of the advertisement has been approved by the Supreme Court. Results may vary depending on your particular facts and legal circumstances.
Consider subscribing to our Firm Insights mailing list by clicking the button below so you can keep up to date with the firm`s latest articles covering various legal topics.
Stay informed and inspired with the latest updates, insights, and events from Scarinci Hollenbeck. Our resource library provides valuable content across a range of categories to keep you connected and ahead of the curve.
Let`s get in touch!
Sign up to get the latest from the Scarinci Hollenbeck, LLC attorneys!