Verizon v. PSC (2025): Shielding Environmental-Hazard Infrastructure Data under FOIL’s “Substantial Competitive Injury” Exemption

1. Introduction

In Matter of Verizon N.Y. Inc. v. New York State Public Service Commission, 2025 NY Slip Op 03612, the Appellate Division, Third Department, confronted a clash between freedom-of-information ideals and the commercial sensitivities of regulated utilities. Triggered by a Wall Street Journal exposé on lead-sheathed telephone cables, the New York Public Service Commission (PSC) demanded that Verizon provide a comprehensive inventory—locations, quantities, and characteristics—of all lead-containing aerial, underground, and underwater cables in New York.

When a journalist sought the unredacted inventory under the Freedom of Information Law (FOIL), Verizon resisted, invoking Public Officers Law § 87(2)(d)’s commercial-information exemption and § 87(2)(i)’s critical-infrastructure exemption. The PSC’s Records Access Officer (RAO) partially agreed, but still ordered disclosure of significant portions of the spreadsheet. Supreme Court (Gandin, J.) annulled the PSC’s determination and barred disclosure. On the PSC’s appeal, the Third Department affirmed, cementing a significant precedent on the scope of FOIL’s “substantial competitive injury” prong.

2. Summary of the Judgment

The court held that Verizon established entitlement to the § 87(2)(d) exemption covering confidential commercial information the disclosure of which would cause “substantial injury” to its competitive position.
The inventory required extensive, proprietary data mining; the information could not be replicated by competitors via public sources or field inspection.
Disclosure would let rivals tailor marketing and service roll-outs, highlight Verizon’s alleged environmental liabilities, and otherwise weaponize the data competitively.
Because the substantial-injury prong applied, the court did not decide whether the inventory also qualified as a trade secret, nor whether the critical-infrastructure exemption independently applied.
Consequently, Supreme Court’s permanent bar on disclosure was affirmed; the journalist and public receive only the heavily-redacted versions.

3. Analysis

3.1 Precedents Cited

The decision synthesises a line of New York and federal FOIL / FOIA precedents:

Encore College Bookstores v. ASC of SUNY at Farmingdale, 87 N.Y.2d 410 (1995) — Originated the two-track reading of § 87(2)(d) (trade secrets vs. substantial competitive injury) and imported federal FOIA “Exemption 4” analysis.
Matter of Verizon N.Y. Inc. v. PSC, 137 A.D.3d 66 (3d Dept 2016) — Earlier encounter between these parties; reiterated dual-track interpretation and set evidentiary standards.
Matter of City of Schenectady v. O’Keeffe, 50 A.D.3d 1384 (3d Dept 2008) — Affirmed strong presumption of disclosure, but recognised limited exceptions.
Worthington Compressors, Inc. v. Costle, 662 F.2d 45 (D.C. Cir. 1981) — Key federal case defining “substantial competitive harm,” often quoted by NY courts.
Seife v. FDA, 43 F.4th 231 (2d Cir. 2022) — Clarified “substantially similar” publicly available information test.

By invoking both state and federal authority, the Third Department reinforced FOIL’s alignment with FOIA Exemption 4 jurisprudence.

3.2 Legal Reasoning

Threshold: Existence of Competition
The court readily found “actual competition” in the telecommunications sector—an uncontested fact.
Likelihood of Substantial Competitive Injury
a) Commercial Value to Competitors:
Verizon’s declaration detailed how the inventory reveals network topology, technological reliance, and potential service vulnerabilities—information that competitors could not lawfully obtain otherwise.

b) Cost of Independent Acquisition:
Competitors would have to recreate decades of engineering surveys, incurring prohibitive costs and, in some cases, facing physical impossibility (e.g., submerged cables).

c) Foreseeable Competitive Use:
Evidence of past marketing campaigns attacking Verizon’s infrastructure supported the prediction of future misuse.
Distinction from Mere Reputational Harm
The court emphasised that the risk extended beyond reputational embarrassment (insufficient under FOIL) to concrete, exploitable, competitive disadvantage.
Rejection of PSC Arguments
The PSC argued publicly available statements already acknowledged lead cables. The court found those statements “generalised” and not “substantially similar” to the precise inventory— relying on Seife’s “substantial similarity” standard.
Mooting Other Exemptions
Having found § 87(2)(d) satisfied, the court declined to rule on trade-secret status or § 87(2)(i)’s critical-infrastructure shield— a deliberate minimalism preserving future doctrinal flexibility.

3.3 Impact

Environmental-Hazard Data — Despite increasing public interest in toxic-infrastructure transparency, the decision confirms that hazardous-asset inventories can remain confidential when competitive stakes are shown. Advocacy groups may need statutory amendments—rather than litigation—to compel disclosure.
Utility & Infrastructure Regulation — Regulated entities now possess a robust blueprint (detailed affidavit + cost/time metrics + competitive-use proof) for blocking FOIL requests aimed at granular infrastructure data.
FOIL Litigation Strategy — Agencies must weigh potential litigation loss before ordering partial disclosures. The judgment stresses that courts will scrutinise the “substantial similarity” of public information and the probative value of confidentiality claims.
Alignment with Federal FOIA Exemption 4 — The opinion tightens state–federal symmetry, signalling that federal cases (post-Food Marketing Institute v. Argus Leader, 139 S.Ct. 2356 (2019)) will increasingly guide New York FOIL analysis.

4. Complex Concepts Simplified

FOIL – New York’s Freedom of Information Law, giving the public presumptive access to government records.
§ 87(2)(d) Dual Exemption – Two separate shields: (1) Trade Secret (information deriving independent economic value from being secret, subject to efforts to maintain secrecy); (2) Substantial Competitive Injury (broader, covers other confidential commercial info if disclosure would cause serious marketplace harm).
Critical Infrastructure Information (§ 87(2)(i)) – Data whose release could endanger life or safety by exposing vulnerabilities; sometimes overlaps with commercial exemptions.
Substantial Similarity Test – Confidentiality is lost if the requested information is already publicly available in essentially the same form.
Affidavit Requirement – The resisting party must supply sworn, specific, non-conclusory affidavits to carry its burden; general assertions fail.

5. Conclusion

Verizon v. PSC (2025) fortifies the protective wall around commercially sensitive infrastructure data, even when that data intersects with significant public-health concerns. By underscoring the breadth of FOIL’s “substantial competitive injury” exemption and harmonising it with modern federal FOIA doctrine, the Third Department has given utilities—and potentially any regulated commercial enterprise—a clear litigation roadmap for shielding granular inventories and operational details. For transparency advocates, the case highlights a growing tension between environmental/public-health transparency and economic-competition considerations, suggesting that legislative, rather than judicial, solutions may be needed to rebalance FOIL in hazard-disclosure contexts.

Key Takeaway: Detailed network or asset inventories that reveal competitive capabilities or vulnerabilities—even when tied to environmental hazards—will likely remain beyond the public’s reach unless requesters can refute claims of competitive harm or lawmakers narrow § 87(2)(d).