FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 2/28/2023 | Document No. 607047 | PAGE Page 1 of 2 * PUBLIC *; 

__________________________________________ 

PUBLIC 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION 

OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGES 

) 

In the Matter of ) 

) 

Intuit, Inc., ) Docket No. 9408

 a corporation, ) 

) 

Respondent. ) 

__________________________________________) 

ORDER ON COMPLAINT COUNSEL’S 

MOTION FOR IN CAMERA TREATMENT 

I. 

Pursuant to Rule 3.45(b) of the Rules of Practice of the Federal Trade Commission 

(“FTC” or “Commission”) and the Scheduling Order entered in this matter, FTC Complaint 

Counsel filed a motion for in camera treatment for designated materials that Complaint Counsel 

and/or Respondent Intuit, Inc. (“Respondent”) have listed on their exhibit lists as materials that 

might be introduced at trial (“Motion”). Respondent filed an opposition. For the reasons set forth 

below, the Motion is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. 

II. 

Under Rule 3.45(b) of the FTC Rules of Practice, after finding that material constitutes 

“sensitive personal information,” (“SPI”) the Administrative Law Judge shall order that such 

material be given in camera treatment. 16 C.F.R. § 3.45(b). “[S]ensitive personal information . . . 

shall be accorded permanent in camera treatment unless disclosure or an expiration date is 

required or provided by law.” 16 C.F.R. § 3.45(b)(3). 

“Sensitive personal information” is defined as including, but not limited to, “an 

individual’s Social Security number, taxpayer identification number, financial account number, 

credit card or debit card number, driver’s license number, state-issued identification number, 

passport number, date of birth (other than year), and any sensitive health information identifiable 

by individual, such as an individual’s medical records.” 16 C.F.R. § 3.45(b). In addition to these 

listed categories of information, in some circumstances, individuals’ names and addresses and 

witness telephone numbers have been found to be “sensitive personal information” and accorded 

in camera treatment. In re Illumina, Inc., No. 9401, 2021 WL 3701608, at *3 (F.T.C. Aug. 12, 

2021); In re Altria Group, Inc., No. 9393, 2021 WL 2258803, at *3 (F.T.C. May 19, 2021); In re 

LabMD, Inc., No. 9357, 2014 FTC LEXIS 127 (F.T.C. May 6, 2014). In instances where SPI can 

be redacted from an exhibit, there is no basis for withholding an entire document from the public 

record. Illumina, 2021 WL 3701608, at *5; Altria, 2021 WL 2258803 at *6; see also In re Basic 
 

 

 

 

 

 

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 2/28/2023 | Document No. 607047 | PAGE Page 2 of 2 * PUBLIC *; 

PUBLIC 

Research, LLC, No. 9318, 2006 FTC LEXIS 14, at *5-6 (F.T.C. Jan. 25, 2006) (permitting the 

redaction of information concerning particular consumers’ names or other personal data when it 

was not relevant). 

III. 

Complaint Counsel seeks permanent in camera treatment for 13 exhibits that Complaint 

Counsel contends contain the following categories of SPI and financial information belonging to 

consumers who have complained about TurboTax and/or who provided discovery in this matter: 

(1) phone numbers; (2) addresses; (3) email addresses; (4) financial account numbers; (5) credit 

card or debit card numbers; (6) financial transaction numbers; (7) tax identification numbers 

(including Social Security numbers); and (8) dates of birth. Respondent does not oppose in 

camera treatment for the SPI. 

This information constitutes SPI and is entitled to permanent in camera treatment. 16 

C.F.R. § 3.45(b); In re Jerk, LLC, No. 9361, 2015 WL 926508, at *3-5 (F.T.C. Feb. 23, 2015); 

LabMD, 2014 FTC LEXIS 127, at *1-2. 

Complaint Counsel asserts that because of the volume of the material and the number of 

consumer records containing SPI, redaction of the SPI from the exhibits would not be practical. 

Respondent opposes Complaint Counsel’s request to withhold the exhibits from the public record 

in their entirety and maintains that the proper course is for Complaint Counsel to redact the SPI 

from the exhibits. 

The exhibits for which Complaint Counsel seeks in camera treatment have been carefully 

reviewed. While the process of redacting the SPI from the exhibits may well be time consuming, 

this is not a basis for withholding documents from the public record. Therefore, Complaint 

Counsel shall redact the SPI from the following 11 exhibits: GX502, GX503, GX504, RX264 

(Attachment A only), RX266, RX269, RX277 (Attachment A only), RX278, RX279, RX280, 

and RX357 (Attachment A only). Two of the thirteen exhibits consist entirely of SPI. Therefore, 

Complaint Counsel is not required to redact the SPI contained therein and permanent in camera 

treatment is granted to: RX231 (Attachment A only) and RX256. 

ORDERED: 

D. Michael Chappell 

Chief Administrative Law Judge 

Date: February 28, 2023 

2