U.S. Supreme Court Rules FOIA Personal-Privacy Exemption Applies to Individuals Not Corporations
The U.S. Supreme Court has determined that a Freedom of Information Act
(FOIA) exemption barring the release of law enforcement records whose
release “could reasonably be expected to constitute an unwarranted invasion
of personal privacy” is inapplicable to documents provided to a federal
agency by a corporation. FCC v. AT&T, Inc., No. 09-1279 (U.S., decided
March 1, 2011). Expressing the wish that “AT&T will not take it personally,”
Chief Justice John Roberts, writing for the 8-0 court, rejected its argument
that “personal privacy” under FOIA reaches corporations because the statute
defines “person” to include a corporation.
The case involved an investigation launched after AT&T voluntarily provided
certain information to the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) arising
from the company’s participation in a program to enhance schools and
libraries’ access to advanced telecommunications and information services.
AT&T apparently reported that it might have overcharged the government for
its program services. While the FCC and AT&T resolved the matter through a
consent decree, a trade association representing the company’s competitors made a FOIA request for all pleadings and correspondence in the agency’s files relating to the investigation.
The agency withheld some of the requested documents as “trade secrets
and commercial or financial information,” and it determined that other
information would be withheld under FOIA exemption 7(C), the “unwarranted
invasion of personal privacy” exemption, because it involved information
about individuals. The exemption was not applied to the corporation itself, so
AT&T sought review in the Third Circuit Court of Appeals, which determined
that exemption 7(C) extended to corporations.
The U.S. Supreme Court explored dictionary definitions and common usage
to reverse the circuit court, finding that a corporation does not have “personal
privacy” interests. The Court does not mention in the opinion that it extended
First Amendment protections to corporations during its last term.
