New Jersey Appellate Court Clarifies Cyber-Harassment Standards Under VASPA

In a reported decision that offers important guidance on protective orders under New Jersey’s Victim’s Assistance and Survivor Protection Act (VASPA), the Appellate Division recently reversed a Final Protective Order in A.C. v. R.S., holding that threatening to contact someone’s employer and inform about a romantic relationship does not constitute cyber-harassment under the law.

The Facts

The case arose from a volatile situation involving a love triangle. The plaintiff was in a romantic relationship with the defendant’s husband while the defendant and her husband were going through a divorce. Late one night, the defendant appeared at the plaintiff’s home, rang the doorbell, and banged on windows demanding the plaintiff come outside. After police intervened and the defendant left the scene, she sent a series of text messages around 2:00 a.m. to a group that included the plaintiff, the defendant, and the defendant’s husband.

The text messages included inflammatory statements and culminated in threats to contact both the plaintiff’s former employer (Essex County Department of Corrections) and her current employer to expose the relationship. The trial court granted a Final Protective Order, finding the defendant had committed cyber-harassment by threatening harm to the plaintiff’s property (her employment) and by sending lewd comments.

The Appellate Division’s Analysis

The Appellate Division reversed the trial court, making several key holdings:

Text Messages Qualify as “Online Communications”

The court rejected the defendant’s argument that SMS text messages cannot constitute cyber-harassment under VASPA because they don’t occur “online.” The court noted that text messages can be transmitted through various services including SMS, MMS, and RCS, and that devices are “online” when connected to the internet or other networks. Since SMS messages can be transmitted online through various applications and computer-based messaging platforms, the court concluded they fall within VASPA’s scope. To hold otherwise would carve out one of the most popular forms of communication from the statute’s protection.

Employment is Property Under the Law

Citing longstanding New Jersey precedent, the court acknowledged that “a calling, business or profession, chosen and followed, is property.” The court referenced McGowan v. O’Rourke, where a restraining order was upheld when a defendant threatened to send lewd pictures to the plaintiff’s employer.

Not All Threats to Contact Employers Constitute Cyber-Harassment

Under VASPA’s cyber-harassment provision, the communication must involve “threatening to inflict injury or physical harm to any person or the property of any person” or “threatening to commit any crime against a person or the person’s property.”

The court found that the defendant’s statement that she would contact the plaintiff’s employers did not qualify as cyber-harassment because it did not threaten to inflict injury or harm, nor did it threaten to commit a crime affecting the plaintiff’s job. The defendant merely intended to inform the employers about the plaintiff’s relationship with her husband—information that was truthful, not false or illicit.

The court distinguished this from McGowan, where the defendant threatened to provide employers with false or illicit information that would be injurious to the plaintiff. That scenario would constitute cyber-harassment; simply threatening to disclose a truthful romantic relationship does not.

Lewdness Finding Also Reversed

The court also reversed the trial court’s finding that the defendant engaged in lewdness. The crude sexual comments in the text messages, while inappropriate, did not constitute “exposing of the genitals for the purpose of arousing or gratifying” sexual desire as required by the statute.

Practical Implications

This decision provides important clarification for parties seeking protective orders and defendants facing such actions:

1. Text messages are covered by VASPA’s cyber-harassment provisions, regardless of whether they’re sent through traditional SMS or internet-based messaging apps.
2. Employment is recognized as property that can be the subject of threats under VASPA.
3. Threatening to truthfully inform an employer about someone’s personal conduct does not rise to the level of cyber-harassment under the statute. There must be a threat to inflict injury or harm, or a threat to commit a crime.
4. Context matters. The court distinguished between threatening to provide false or illicit information (which could be actionable) versus threatening to disclose truthful information about someone’s personal life (which is not).

This case reflects the courts’ careful balancing act in VASPA cases. While VASPA was designed to provide maximum protection to victims who fall outside the scope of the Prevention of Domestic Violence Act, courts must still ensure that the statutory requirements are met. Not every threatening or harassing communication rises to the level of cyber-harassment under the law.

For individuals involved in contentious situations, this case serves as a reminder that while emotional and inflammatory communications may be inappropriate and hurtful, they must meet specific legal standards to warrant a protective order. At the same time, the decision’s recognition that text messages constitute online communications under VASPA ensures the statute remains relevant in our digital age.

A.C. v. R.S., No. A-1217-24 (App. Div. Dec. 1, 2025)