Apprentice Info. Sys., Inc. v. Datascout, LLC, 544 S.W.3d 39

Background

AIS is a private company that stores county electronic records and sells access to datasets; DataScout is a competitor that sells access to public county data.
DataScout sought bulk county data; after a failed business arrangement with AIS, DataScout issued FOIA requests in 2013 for bulk datasets AIS held under county contracts.
DataScout sued AIS claiming AIS functioned as the counties' de facto custodian, obstructed FOIA access, charged excessive fees, and engaged in deceptive trade practices and tortious interference.
After a liability trial the circuit court found AIS violated FOIA, the ADTPA, and tortiously interfered with DataScout’s business expectancy, and entered a permanent injunction against AIS.
AIS appealed interlocutorily challenging the permanent injunction; DataScout moved to dismiss the appeal.
The Arkansas Court of Appeals denied the motion to dismiss, reviewed the injunction de novo, and evaluated whether liability supported permanent injunctive relief.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether AIS is subject to FOIA and liable for withholding public records	DataScout: AIS acted as counties' de facto custodian and obstructed access to electronic public records	AIS: As a private contractor it is not a FOIA-covered custodian; counties are the custodians	Reversed: AIS is not a FOIA defendant alone; counties are the custodians and circuit court erred to treat AIS as covered under FOIA
Whether AIS tortiously interfered with DataScout's business expectancy	DataScout: AIS intentionally interfered with DataScout's prospective deals by blocking access to bulk data	AIS: DataScout failed to prove a specific business expectancy with a identified third party	Reversed: DataScout failed to prove a precise business expectancy; tortious-interference claim fails
Whether AIS violated the ADTPA and whether ADTPA supports injunctive relief	DataScout: AIS engaged in deceptive/unconscionable practices with county officials statewide	AIS: ADTPA does not support private injunctive relief in this context	Court declined to address merits on interlocutory appeal and held ADTPA does not provide for private injunctive relief; permanent injunction not supported on that basis
Whether permanent injunction was appropriate after liability phase	DataScout: Injunction necessary to prevent non-monetary harms and enforce access parity	AIS: No liability basis supports injunction; injunction was an abuse of discretion	Reversed: Because each asserted ground for liability failed (or does not permit injunction), issuing a permanent injunction was an abuse of discretion

Key Cases Cited

City of Dover v. City of Russellville, 363 Ark. 458, 215 S.W.3d 623 (discussing when a court may grant a permanent injunction)
United Food & Commercial Workers Int'l Union v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 353 Ark. 902, 120 S.W.3d 89 (standard of review and when injunctive relief may be appropriate)
S. College of Naturopathy v. State of Arkansas ex rel. Beebe, 360 Ark. 543, 203 S.W.3d 111 (standard for reviewing factual findings leading to injunction)
Nabholz Constr. Corp. v. Contractors for Pub. Prot. Ass'n, 371 Ark. 411, 266 S.W.3d 689 (private entities are not proper FOIA defendants absent a public-custodian role)
City of Fayetteville v. Edmark, 304 Ark. 179, 801 S.W.2d 275 (public official remains responsible for producing records even when private parties possess them)
Swaney v. Tilford, 320 Ark. 652, 898 S.W.2d 462 (private possession of public records does not relieve public official of production duties)
Fox v. Perroni, 358 Ark. 251, 188 S.W.3d 881 (examples of courts treating records held by private parties as public records for which public officials retain responsibility)
Stewart Title Guar. Co. v. American Abstract & Title Co., 363 Ark. 530, 215 S.W.3d 596 (elements and precision required to prove tortious interference with business expectancy)
Country Corner Food & Drug, Inc. v. First State Bank & Trust Co., 332 Ark. 645, 966 S.W.2d 894 (requiring particularity in proving business expectancy)
Baptist Health v. Murphy, 2010 Ark. 358, 373 S.W.3d 269 (ADTPA does not provide for private injunctive relief)