Lyft, Inc. v. Pa PUC K. Lyons and PG Publishing, Inc. d/b/a The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette v. Pa PUC
145 A.3d 1235
| Pa. Commw. Ct. | 2016Background
- Lyft operated a ride‑sharing app in Pennsylvania beginning February 2014 and applied for PUC experimental authority; separate BIE enforcement action led to a cease‑and‑desist order for pre‑authorization operations.
- ALJs asked for the number of Lyft trips in Allegheny County across three pre‑authorization timeframes; Lyft sought a protective order claiming the trip counts were proprietary/trade secret aggregated data.
- ALJs denied the protective order; Lyft sought interlocutory review at the PUC and submitted an affidavit not previously in the ALJ record; PG (Pittsburgh Post‑Gazette) sought limited emergency intervention to oppose sealing and to unseal a closed portion of the hearing where a reporter had been excluded.
- The PUC ordered the aggregated trip counts unsealed, finding Lyft failed to show substantial competitive harm and that public interest (safety/public right to know) outweighed proprietary claims; PUC also denied PG’s emergency petition to intervene for lack of immediate/irreparable harm.
- Lyft appealed the PUC’s denial of proprietary status; PG cross‑appealed the denial of intervention. This Court affirmed the PUC on proprietary status and dismissed PG’s cross‑appeal as moot because PG obtained the relief sought and participated in the proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether aggregated Lyft trip counts are proprietary/trade secrets warranting a protective order | Lyft: aggregated trip counts could be used by competitors to model operations and cause substantial competitive harm; PUC should apply trade‑secret (Crum) factors | PUC/PG: data are aggregated (no locations, times, riders) and lack the detail needed for competitive harm; public interest favors disclosure | Court: Affirmed PUC—aggregated trip counts are not proprietary; Lyft failed to meet burden of substantial harm |
| Whether PUC misapplied the proper legal test (Crum/trade‑secret factors) | Lyft: PUC should apply Crum six‑factor trade secret test used under RTKL | PUC: PUC regulations set its own multi‑factor test; Crum is inapplicable; defer to agency regulation | Court: PUC did not err; applied its regulation and factors; Crum not required here |
| Whether PUC decision was supported by substantial evidence | Lyft: record supports protection; affidavit submitted to PUC showed harm | PUC/PG: Lyft presented no documentary/testimonial evidence to ALJs; affidavit was improper and unpersuasive; record shows public safety interest | Court: Substantial‑evidence standard satisfied for PUC; Lyft bore burden and failed to present necessary evidence |
| Whether PG was wrongly denied emergency intervention to protect public‑access rights | PG: needed party status to ensure notice and protect First Amendment/newsgathering interests; denial required reversal | PUC/Lyft: PG participated and obtained the relief it sought; no immediate irreparable harm; no ongoing controversy | Court: Cross‑appeal dismissed as moot—PG obtained substantive relief and may participate on appeal; no live controversy (concurring judge would reach merits under exception) |
Key Cases Cited
- Energy Conservation Council of Pa. v. Pa. Pub. Util. Comm’n, 25 A.3d 440 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2011) (agency deference and standards for reviewing PUC factfinding)
- Norfolk & Western Railway Co. v. Pa. Pub. Util. Comm’n, 413 A.2d 1037 (Pa. 1980) (definition of substantial evidence review)
- Milkie v. Pa. Pub. Util. Comm’n, 768 A.2d 1217 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2001) (burden on party seeking relief before the PUC)
- Wheeling Pittsburgh Steel Corp. v. Pa. Pub. Util. Comm’n, 778 A.2d 785 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2001) (appellate review and substantial evidence principles)
- Crum v. Bridgestone/Firestone N. Am. Tire, 907 A.2d 578 (Pa. Super. 2006) (six‑factor trade‑secret test applied under RTKL)
- Popowsky v. Pa. Pub. Util. Comm’n, 910 A.2d 38 (Pa. 2006) (scope of appellate review of PUC orders)