• Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar
  • Skip to secondary sidebar

Alston & Bird Government Contracts Blog

  • Home
  • Services
  • Meet Our Team

Food Marketing Institute v. Argus Leader Media: Enhanced FOIA Protection for Contractors’ “Confidential” Commercial or Financial Information

January 6, 2020 By Andrew Howard

For the last 55 years nearly all federal agencies and courts tasked with determining whether a contractor’s “commercial or financial” information is “confidential” for purposes of exemption from public disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act have had to evaluate – among other things – whether disclosure of the information likely would cause substantial harm to the competitive position of the person from whom the information was obtained. In Food Marketing Institute v. Argus Leader Media, 588 U.S. ___ (2019), the Supreme Court rejected this decades-long “competitive harm” test, concluding that where both the submitter of information customarily keeps such information private and the government gives some assurance that the information, once received, will be kept in confidence, the information is “confidential” and is exempt from disclosure under Exemption 4 of FOIA.

The competitive harm test originated with the D.C. Circuit’s 1974 decision in National Parks and Conservation Ass’n v. Morton, 498 F.2d 765 (D.C. Cir. 1974). There, the circuit court considered certain legislative history (including draft bills that never were enacted into law) to ascertain the legislative purpose underlying Exemption 4. The circuit court ultimately formulated the competitive harm test: “…commercial or financial matter is ‘confidential’ [only] if disclosure of the information is likely … (1) to impair the Government’s ability to obtain necessary information in the future; or (2) to cause substantial harm to the competitive position of the person from whom the information was obtained.” Id. at 770.

In Argus Leader, a majority of the Supreme Court was critical of the circuit court’s approach, concluding that the statutory text of Exemption 4 was clear on its face and that the circuit court therefore overstepped its authority by considering the law’s legislative history. In this regard, the Supreme Court observed that “Exemption 4 shields from mandatory disclosure ‘commercial or financial information obtained from a person and privileged and confidential.’” Argus Leader, 588 U.S. at ___. Because the “competitive harm” test fabricated by the D.C. Circuit was derived by the lower court’s erroneous conclusion that the statute was not clear on its face and was in need of extrinsic interpretive aid, the Supreme Court rejected the test, concluding that where the submitter of information customarily keeps such information private and the government gives some assurance that the information, once received, will be kept private, the information is “confidential” under Exemption 4 and will not be disclosed. (The Court left for another day the question whether Exemption 4 confidentiality can attach where only the first element exists, that is where the information received from a person is customarily treated by that person as private but the government gives no reciprocal assurance that once received it will continue to be treated that way.)

The Argus Leader decision makes it much easier for contractors to shield from public disclosure information that could cause competitive harm because it alleviates the need for contractors actually to prove any degree of competitive harm is likely to ensue if the information is publicly disclosed. Indeed, Argus Leader holds that so long as a contractor customarily treats as private information submitted to the government and the government gives some assurance that, once received, the information will be kept private, the information is “confidential” and is exempt from disclosure under FOIA. Contractors are therefore well advised to take measures to restrict access (even internally) to competitively-sensitive information that likely will be required for submission to the government during bidding and/or contract performance. And, if the solicitation or resulting contract does not contain specific provisions governing the confidential treatment of such information, the contractors should inquire through pre-bid RFIs whether competitively-sensitive information of that type will be treated as confidential.

Filed Under: Advice to Contractors & Grant Recipients, Information Technology, IP and Research in the Government World Tagged With: Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), U.S. Supreme Court

About Andrew Howard

Andy Howard is a partner in the firm’s Construction & Government Contracts Group who represents clients across a wide range of industries, including construction, health care, aerospace, energy and technology. Andy’s practice involves representing construction industry professionals and federal, state and local government contractors.

[Read Bio]

Primary Sidebar

This blog is a service of Alston & Bird’s Government Contracts team and provides insights on cases, rules, trends, and latest developments in local, state, and federal government contracting. Our attorney observations include analysis of investigations, litigation, protests and issues affecting present or prospective prime contractors, subcontractors, and grant recipients across various industries.

Archives

RECEIVE EMAIL NOTIFICATIONS WHEN NEW POSTS ARE ADDED.

A confirmation email has been sent to the email address provided.

Categories

Secondary Sidebar

Recent Posts

  • The OFCCP’s New Contractor Portal: Here is What Federal Contractors and Subcontractors Ought to Know
  • Biden’s Infrastructure Funding Comes with Strings Attached
  • Department of Defense Suspends the CMMC Pilot Program And CMMC Requirements In DoD Solicitations Pending Major Changes For CMMC 2.0
  • Executive Order on Improving the Nation’s Cybersecurity: Biden Implements New Reporting Requirements on IT Government Contractors
  • Is There a Road Forward for Biden’s Infrastructure Plans?
Copyright © 2022 · Alston & Bird · All Rights Reserved. Privacy.