Earlier this year, in Food Marketing Institute v. Argus Leader, the Supreme Court radically altered the scope of Exemption 4 under the Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”). Exemption 4 protects from disclosure “trade secrets” and “commercial or financial information obtained from a person [that is either] privileged or confidential.” At issue in Argus Leader was the precise meaning of the term “confidential.” Rather than accept the long-standing “competitive harm” standard developed by the D.C. Circuit nearly forty years ago, the Supreme Court instead held that “confidential” meant anything “customarily and actually treated as private by its owner.” As Cause of Action Institute warned at the time, that “cramped reading” of Exemption 4 “failed to grapple with the historical and contextual meaning” of “confidential” and would “make it more difficult for the media and government-transparency groups to conduct oversight of the often-murky nexus between business and government.”