A U.S. District Court has denied the Functional Government Initiative's (FGI) request for attorney fees in a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) case against the Federal Trade Commission (FTC). The ruling, issued on September 22, 2026, affects organizations and individuals seeking to recover costs after filing FOIA requests.

The case stems from FGI's request for records related to a baby formula shortage. The court's decision highlights the challenges faced by organizations when pursuing legal action to obtain public records.

Background

FGI filed its FOIA request with the FTC on August 7, 2022, seeking documents related to the baby formula shortage. The FTC designated the request as complex due to its breadth, which involved multiple offices within the agency. The FTC's FOIA office began processing the request but informed FGI that it would not meet the statutory 20-business day deadline due to "unusual circumstances" in locating necessary records.

After FGI filed a lawsuit on October 26, 2022, claiming the FTC had failed to respond in a timely manner, the FTC continued to process the request. Over the following months, the FTC collected thousands of records from various offices and ultimately made several productions of documents to FGI.

The Ruling

In its ruling, the court denied FGI's motion for attorney fees, stating that the organization did not meet the burden of proving that its lawsuit was the catalyst for the FTC's eventual production of documents. Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly wrote, "Plaintiff has not shown that Defendant would have produced fewer than all of the records it ultimately provided to Plaintiff had Plaintiff not initiated this litigation."

The court emphasized that FGI could not rely solely on the timing of the lawsuit to demonstrate causation. The FTC had already begun processing the request before FGI filed suit, which undermined the argument that the litigation prompted the agency's actions. The court noted, "Defendant's actions at the administrative level do not indicate that this litigation catalyzed its response to Plaintiff's FOIA request."

Impact

This ruling has significant implications for organizations seeking to recover attorney fees under the FOIA. It reinforces the idea that simply filing a lawsuit does not guarantee an award of fees, especially if the agency has already taken steps to fulfill the request. The decision may deter some groups from pursuing legal action, knowing that they must provide substantial evidence to prove their case.

Furthermore, the ruling clarifies the standards for proving causation under the "catalyst theory," which allows for fee recovery if the litigation causes the agency to release documents. The court's decision indicates that plaintiffs must show more than just a correlation between their lawsuit and the agency's actions.

What's Next

FGI's options for appeal remain unclear, as the court did not specify whether the ruling could be contested. There are no related cases pending that could influence the outcome of this decision. Organizations seeking to challenge FOIA responses may need to consider the implications of this ruling in future litigation.