Unlock document.
This document is partially blurred.
Unlock all pages and 1 million more documents.
Get Access
Case 14.2
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION V. AT&T INC.
Supreme Court of the United States
562 U.S. 397; 131 S.Ct. 1177; 2011 U.S. LEXIS 1899 [March 1, 2011]
FACTS:
AT&T voluntarily disclosed to the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) that it might have
over-charged the government for telecommunications and information services related to a
program designed to enhance access to schools and libraries.
The FCC investigated, and AT&T provided various documents in response.
AT&T eventually agreed to pay the government $500,000 to settle the case.
When a trade association representing some of AT&T’s competitors requested the company’s
documents through a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request, AT&T objected on the basis that
it would constitute a violation of “personal privacy.”
The FOIA’s “personal privacy” exemption to making records public had never been applied to
corporations.
Although corporations are considered legal persons, it was not clear under the statute that the
broad legal definition of “person” applied here.
PROCEDURE: The FCC’s Enforcement Bureau decided to withhold information under 7(C). The FCC
agreed and the U.S. Court of Appeals affirmed that 7(C) of FOIA extended “personal privacy” to the
respondent corporation.
ISSUE: Do corporations have “personal privacy” rights as defined by the federal Freedom of
Information Act?
RULE: “’Person’ is a defined term in the statutes, “personal” is not. When a statute does not define a
term, we typically ‘give the phrase its ordinary meaning.’”
REASONING:
1. “Personal” ordinarily refers to individuals. Corporations typically do not use the word “personal” to
describe themselves.
2. Responding to a request for information, an individual might say, “that’s personal,” a company
spokesman, when asked for the information about the company, would not. We often use the
Copyright © 2016 McGraw-Hill Education. All rights reserved. No reproduction or distribution without
the prior written consent of McGraw-Hill Education.
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION:
Despite its contention that “common legal usage” of the word “person” supports its reading of the
term “personal privacy,” AT&T does not cite a single instance in which this Court or any other has
expressly referred to a corporation’s “personal privacy.” Nor does it identify any other statute that
does so.
On the contrary, treaties in print around the time that Congress drafted the exemption at hand
reflect the understanding that the specific concept of “personal privacy,” at least as a matter of
