Background
Anthony Tellerinio submitted a request to the Pennsylvania Department of Revenue under the Right-to-Know Law (RTKL), Act of February 14, 2008, P.L. 6, 65 P.S. §§ 67.101–67.3104, seeking records sufficient to identify the winning 14-digit ticket number and 12-digit “VIRN number” (Validation Information Record Number) for claimed top-prize winners of certain Lottery instant-game tickets priced at $20, $30, and $50 between 2020 and 2024. VIRN numbers are integral to Scientific Games, LLC’s ticket security system: they serve as a cross-validation mechanism allowing the Lottery’s sales terminals to verify a winning claim without revealing the underlying algorithm.
The Department denied the request on trade-secret and confidential proprietary information grounds under RTKL Section 708(b)(11), 65 P.S. § 67.708(b)(11), which exempts records that “constitute or reveal a trade secret or confidential proprietary information.” Scientific Games’ Senior Director submitted an attestation explaining that the VIRN numbers encode a proprietary algorithm developed over decades of investment, that they function as the “password and encryption key” to game file records, that access is strictly limited even within the company, and that competitors could use an aggregated VIRN dataset to reconstruct Scientific Games’ validation methodology.
The Office of Open Records (OOR) initially upheld the denial. On reconsideration, the OOR reversed: because winning ticket holders receive their individual VIRN numbers upon claiming prizes, and retailers sometimes post claimed winning-ticket information, the OOR concluded claimed VIRN numbers are already “in the public purview.” The Department and Scientific Games appealed to the Commonwealth Court, which exercises de novo review as the ultimate factfinder in RTKL appeals from Commonwealth agencies. 65 P.S. § 67.1301.
The Court’s Holding
Reversed. A seven-judge panel, in an opinion by Judge Covey, held the VIRN numbers are trade secrets exempt from disclosure under Section 708(b)(11) and that the OOR erred on both questions before it.
Scope of the request. The court rejected the argument that the OOR improperly modified the request on reconsideration. Tellerinio’s original request was always limited to “claimed top prizes” — the request text said so expressly. The OOR’s reconsideration merely clarified this scope rather than rewriting what was sought. Section 703 of the RTKL prohibits agencies and the OOR from altering a requester’s demand, but reading a request in accordance with its own plain language is not a prohibited modification.
Trade-secret exemption. Under RTKL Section 102, 65 P.S. § 67.102, a trade secret is information that (1) derives independent economic value from not being generally known or readily ascertainable by those who could benefit from disclosure, and (2) is the subject of reasonable efforts to maintain its secrecy. The court accepted Scientific Games’ unrebutted attestation that the VIRN numbers encode a pattern from which the validation algorithm can be reconstructed, that the company maintains strict access controls, and that aggregated VIRN data would allow competitors to reverse-engineer the methodology. The decisive distinction: individual VIRN numbers are disclosed to winning ticket holders one at a time, with the physical tickets immediately secured in a vault — they are never displayed publicly or cumulatively. Compiling thousands of claimed VIRN numbers produces a “pattern,” within the statutory trade-secret definition, from which a competitor can deduce the underlying algorithm. The OOR misconstrued Scientific Games’ argument as protecting the algorithm itself; what Section 708(b)(11) covers is information that would reveal that algorithm — and a compiled VIRN dataset does exactly that.
Key Takeaways
- The RTKL trade-secret exemption, Section 708(b)(11), extends to compilations of information that individually enter the public sphere through limited, transactional exposure, provided the aggregated form would “constitute or reveal” a proprietary pattern or algorithm. The test turns on whether the compilation qualifies — not whether any individual element has been seen by a third party.
- Vendors whose proprietary systems underlie public-agency services — lottery contractors, technology providers, infrastructure operators — can invoke the RTKL trade-secret exemption even when operational outputs are disclosed transaction by transaction, so long as the aggregate disclosure would reveal protected methodologies.
- A RTKL requester arguing that information is “in the public domain” must affirmatively establish that the specific compilation sought lacks independent value — not merely that component elements were accessible to individual recipients in the normal course of business. Requester’s failure to rebut Scientific Games’ attestation with competing evidence was fatal here.
- Vendors defending RTKL denials should submit detailed, first-hand attestations establishing the independent economic value of the secrecy and the reasonable measures used to maintain it, with specific attention to the aggregation risk: how combining individually-disclosed data points creates a protectable compilation.
- The Commonwealth Court exercises de novo review in RTKL appeals from Commonwealth agencies and makes independent factual findings — it is not deferential to the OOR’s determinations of fact.
Why It Matters
For Pennsylvania practitioners, Tellerinio addresses a recurring tension in RTKL practice: when does a government vendor’s proprietary information retain statutory protection despite the government’s transparency obligations? The court’s answer — that aggregate disclosure can be a protectable trade secret even when individual data points enter the public record through routine transactions — has broad implications wherever agencies contract with private parties whose methodologies power public programs. Lottery security systems, utility billing algorithms, tax-assessment software, and similar contractor intellectual property all present the same analytical question.
The decision is also instructive on hearing strategy. If the OOR or a challenger fails to rebut the vendor’s attestation with competing evidence, the exemption claim will likely succeed. Practitioners challenging RTKL denials on trade-secret grounds should consider submitting expert analysis demonstrating that the contested information cannot actually be used to reconstruct the vendor’s methodology — the kind of affirmative rebuttal that was entirely absent in Tellerinio. Conversely, agencies and their vendors defending denials should ensure their attestations address the aggregation risk specifically and not merely make generalized assertions of secrecy.