Order Emphasizes SC Court’s Position that FOIA Laws Must Favor Public Access
COLUMBIA – A Richland County Circuit Court judge has ordered Richland County to turn over property assessment records requested by Zillow, a leading digital real estate marketplace company, ruling that the county violated South Carolina’s Freedom of Information Act by denying the company access to public records.
In a sweeping order filed May 8, Circuit Judge Daniel M. Coble rejected multiple arguments made by Richland County’s five attorneys and ordered the county to “produce forthwith the public records requested by the Plaintiff Zillow, Inc., without contrived misreading of the request or delay.”
Greenville attorney Carl F. Muller, who grew up in Blythewood, represented Zillow against the county.
“Richland County has been stonewalling these Freedom of Information cases for a while, so I think this is going to let them know that they need to change the way that they do business in the county as a whole,” Muller said. “This order uses strong words. It’s a 2 x 4 across the head, without question. I think that after the order, the county will loosen up and, I hope, reorient itself to do what’s right – not just for Zillow but for the public in general. And not just in this case,” he said. “The principle applies across the board.
“I think everyone should feel better about what’s available to taxpayers under the Freedom of Information Act in Richland County, and in all of its departments,” Muller said.
The lawsuit stems from a May 2024 request by Zillow for Richland County’s 2023 property assessment files, including appraisal and parcel data commonly referred to as “CAMA Data.” Zillow sought the information in electronic form for all parcels in the county.
Richland County initially denied the request, telling Zillow there were “no responsive public records regarding this matter,” then later directing the company to two county websites and asserting that the county was not required “to compile and create public records” to satisfy the request.
But Coble found that the requested records already existed and that the county had previously provided similar records to Zillow in earlier years.
“The request did not ask Richland County to create any records,” Coble wrote. “Rather, it limited the request to information already in existence.”
The judge said testimony showed the county already transmits the same property information nightly in electronic batches to an outside vendor, Spatialist, which processes the information for online posting.
“The electronic record exists and the County could send it to Zillow in the same manner that it sends the information to Spatialist,” Coble wrote.
A major issue in the case involved Richland County’s practice of “opting out” certain parcel information from public display online. According to the order, the county argued the withheld information was exempt under privacy protections in the FOIA law.
Coble disagreed.
“The information is not of a personal nature; it is about property,” he wrote. “It does not constitute invasion of personal privacy.”
The judge noted that the same information remains available to the public on computer terminals inside the Richland County Assessor’s Office. He also pointed out that only about 10,000 of the county’s nearly 200,000 parcels had been opted out, undermining the county’s argument that the information was widely viewed as private.
Coble further criticized the county for failing to identify specific records that legally qualified for exemption under FOIA.
“The County has not identified any specific information for any specific parcel that can be properly excluded under the Act,” he wrote.
The judge also dismissed the county’s argument that Zillow intended to use the information improperly for commercial solicitation. The order states Zillow expressly told the county it would use the records “in compliance with the South Carolina Freedom of Information Act.”
Coble said there was “no evidence” that Zillow violated the law or solicited South Carolina residents improperly.
The order repeatedly emphasized South Carolina courts’ longstanding position that FOIA laws must be interpreted broadly in favor of public access.
“The Act is remedial and should be liberally construed,” Coble wrote, citing previous South Carolina Supreme Court rulings.
The judge also rejected the county’s claim that Zillow lacked standing to sue because it is not a South Carolina citizen. Coble ruled that Zillow qualifies as a “person” under the FOIA statute and therefore has enforceable rights to obtain public records.
“There is nothing in the Act that prohibits suit by Zillow,” Coble wrote. “The right to information includes the right to enforcement.”
In one of the strongest passages in the order, Coble accused the county of making arguments that were “not credible,” including its assertion that complying with the request would require extensive programming work.
“The County’s Harris argument is a red herring and not credible,” he wrote.
The judge concluded that Richland County was not acting in good faith and ruled Zillow is entitled not only to the requested records but also to attorneys’ fees and court costs.
Under the order, Richland County must immediately provide the requested property assessment records to Zillow and later pay attorneys’ fees and litigation costs in an amount to be determined by the court.
The judge retained jurisdiction over the case to enforce the order if necessary.