Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court Upholds Luzerne County’s RTKL Data Fee in Zillow Appeal

O’Hagan Meyer is pleased to announce a favorable decision from the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania in Susan Noto and Zillow, Inc. v. Luzerne County, affirming Luzerne County’s authority to charge a reasonable market-based fee for the production of complex public data under the Pennsylvania Right-to-Know Law (RTKL).

The dispute arose from Zillow’s request for an electronic copy of the County’s 2023 Computer-Assisted Mass Appraisal (CAMA) dataset, a comprehensive and integrated property assessment database. Luzerne County assessed a fee of $10,100—approximately $0.06 per parcel—for the requested data. Zillow challenged the fee, arguing that RTKL duplication costs should be limited to the marginal cost of copying records and that no legitimate market exists for public tax assessment data.

On behalf of Luzerne County, O’Hagan Meyer attorneys Tamara Grimm, Partner, and Adam Yanoff, Of Counsel, successfully argued that Section 1307(b)(4) of the RTKL expressly permits agencies to charge fees based on the reasonable market value of “complex and extensive data sets,” such as CAMA records. The Commonwealth Court agreed, holding that the statute authorizes fees reflecting the value of the data itself—not merely the mechanical cost of duplication.

In affirming the trial court’s dismissal of Zillow’s appeal, the Court emphasized that Luzerne County’s pricing methodology was both appropriate and reasonable. Specifically, the County’s comparison of fees charged by other Pennsylvania counties for similar datasets was a valid means of determining market value. The Court noted that Luzerne County’s fee was at or below the median charged statewide, further supporting its reasonableness.

The Court also rejected Zillow’s allegations of bad faith. Zillow claimed the County improperly sought to recoup costs associated with collecting and maintaining assessment data, displayed hostility toward Zillow, and coordinated with other counties regarding pricing. The Court found no merit in these assertions, concluding that the County acted transparently and in compliance with RTKL requirements. Luzerne County promptly notified Zillow that the requested records were available and offered access upon payment of the established fee.

Further, the Court determined that communications among counties showed a good-faith effort to establish a reasonable and consistent market value for similar datasets—not improper conduct such as price-fixing or retaliation. Because the fee was lawful and reasonable, the Court found no basis for awarding attorneys’ fees or sanctions under RTKL Section 1304.

The Commonwealth Court also denied Zillow’s attempt to supplement the record with evidence related to a separate, unrelated fee dispute involving another county.

This decision provides important clarification for Pennsylvania agencies regarding the scope of permissible fees under the RTKL, particularly as it applies to large, complex datasets. The ruling confirms that agencies may recover the market value of such data and are not limited to nominal duplication costs when responding to requests involving substantial public resources.