Food Marketing Institute v. Argus Leader Media

Background

A South Dakota newspaper asked the U.S. Department of Agriculture for the names and addresses of all stores in the food-stamp program and each store’s annual redemption totals from 2005–2010. The USDA released names and addresses but refused to disclose store-level SNAP redemption data under FOIA Exemption 4, which covers commercial or financial information that is "confidential." A federal district court ordered disclosure after finding the requested data would not cause "substantial competitive harm," and a trade association for grocery retailers intervened and appealed.

Reasoning

The Court considered what "confidential" meant under Exemption 4. It rejected a rule requiring proof that disclosure would cause substantial competitive harm. Instead, the Court held that commercial or financial information is "confidential" at least where the information is both customarily kept private by its owner and was provided to the government with an assurance it would be kept private. The Court found the store-level SNAP data met those conditions, in part because the government had long promised privacy to participating retailers, and reversed the court of appeals.

Real world impact

The ruling lets agencies withhold business data that companies normally keep private and that were given to the government under promises of confidentiality. That limits reporters’ access to some detailed program data and strengthens businesses’ protection of proprietary sales information. The decision remands the case for further proceedings consistent with this interpretation and is not necessarily the final word on all FOIA disputes.

Dissents or concurrances

A separate opinion agreed in part but said a showing of genuine harm to business interests should also be required before nondisclosure; that view would keep a harm check on secrecy claims.