An exemption in the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) applies to records or information compiled for law enforcement purposes, "but only to the extent that the production of such law enforcement records or information . . . could reasonably be expected to constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy." AT&T turned over records to the FCC in connection with an investigation of some bills, and a trade association representing some of its competitors sought all the records. In this suit to prevent the FCC from releasing the records, the Third Circuit held that a corporation is included in the statute's definition of a "person" and thus has personal privacy interests protected from disclosure by Exemption 7(C) of FOIA.
The NAM filed an amicus brief 12/15/10 arguing that corporations enjoy easily recognizable privacy interests other than those involving financial or trade secrets, and the government's investigative powers should not be used to serve private ends, or to cause harm or embarrassment unrelated to proper investigative purposes. Billions of private messages should not become available for public display merely because a business entity is swept up in a government investigation, either as a target, a victim, or a source of information. A wide range of in-house communications, in the hands of a competitor or a third party, including the press or trial lawyers, could be deployed to harm the company, its shareholders and employees. It is improper and abusive for the government's broad investigative power to be used to serve private ends and cause private injury.
On March 1, 2011, the Supreme Court unanimously decided that "personal privacy" is a term that is not defined in the statute, and its ordinary meaning does not include the privacy interests of corporations. Chief Justice Roberts issued the Court's opinion, citing other sections of FOIA where personal privacy has been interpreted to include only an individual's privacy interests. As a result of the decision, companies that provide information to the government will only be able to argue that it should not be publicly disclosed because it falls within Exemption 4 of FOIA, relating to "trade secrets and commercial or financial information obtained from a person and privileged or confidential."