[abhikshah]

I agree that AT&T should not have "personal privacy" rights but the reasoning described in the article seems very odd to me (IANAL, obviously). To me, "personal" and "person" seem obviously related. And more importantly, the fact that the outcome of the case hinges on this grammatical detail seems silly. But, I suppose until corporate personhood is repealed or overturned, this is the only way to restrict corporate overreach.

[chc]

"Personal" and "person" are obviously related, but as Roberts observed, so are many other noun-adjective pairs like "edge" and "edgy," and edgy things very often don't even have edges. You can't infer the precise meaning of one from an arbitrary definition of the other. It seems very unlikely that Congress had the law's idiosyncratic definition of "person" in mind rather than the common definition of "personal privacy."