USA – ILLINOIS Trends and Developments Contributed by: Steven P. Blonder, Much Shelist
for steep penalties. These laws prohibit enquiries into family medical history, among other things, in con- nection with employment. Recently, there has been a surge in the filing of class action lawsuits relating to genetic information, particularly under Illinois’ Genet- ic Information Privacy Act − continuing a trend that developed in 2024. More than 25 such cases were filed in 2025. Technology has also led to increased litigation in the trade secret arena. The odds of a company unwittingly finding another company’s trade secret on its com- puter system or experiencing an unplanned disclo- sure of its own trade secret are substantially increased today. This stems from a variety of reasons, ranging from employee mobility being on the rise, reductions in force, workplaces that are remote or hybrid, and workers increasingly bringing their own devices to the workplace. The number of lawsuits filed alleging the misappropriation of trade secrets has been continually increasing for the past several years and 2025 is no exception to this trend. Suits relating to employee non-compete agreements used to clog up court dockets. Now, as the federal government has taken steps to curtail the enforceabil- ity of such non-compete agreements and many states have followed suit, non-compete litigation is largely a relic of the past. However, trade secret litigation has taken its place, as companies endeavour to protect their assets. In recent years, litigation involving trade secrets has increased in sophistication, and clients have become more aware of the legal protections available under state and federal law. Additionally, as competition has intensified in many industries, companies often turn to trade secret protection for their core economic business drivers instead of seeking protection under the patent laws. Financial drivers such as customer lists, algorithms, and other proprietary technology or business meth- ods enjoy better protection as trade secrets, which essentially enables companies to continue to derive economic value from their protected secrets in perpe- tuity. As workforces with access to confidential and proprietary information remain increasingly remote, and workers display an increased willingness to speak out about business practices they do not agree with,
the need for businesses to protect their confidential information is magnified. Trade secrets are often core to a business’ economic viability, if not its success, and rank among a com- pany’s most valuable assets; put another way, they are often a company’s “crown jewels”. Well-known examples include the formula for Coca-Cola, Goog- le’s search algorithm, and the secret sauce recipe of McDonald’s. None of these examples enjoy patent, copyright or trade mark protection – rather, each is a protected trade secret. A trade secret enjoys signifi- cant advantages over the other forms of IP protection in that disclosure is not required and the “secret” can be protected for an unlimited period. Although many of the big IP litigation battles historically involved pat- ent challenges, that is no longer the case. Many well- known companies are or have been involved in costly trade secret litigation in recent years. This litigation in the trade secret space cut across a wide swathe of industries, ranging from cannabis to fashion and retail, e-commerce and consumer products. Historically, trade secret claims had been brought in state courts, but now – following the 2016 passage of the federal Defend Trade Secrets Act (DTSA), which created a federal cause of action for trade secret theft – claims are routinely brought in the federal courts. On the recovery side, courts have continued to award successful plaintiffs substantial damages in trade secret cases. Although most claims are resolved prior to trial, the past years have seen federal court trade secret claims result in large jury verdicts. If noth- ing else, recent years serve as a stark reminder that the damages that are being awarded for trade secret claims remain staggering. Return of ERISA suits 2024 reflected the emergence of class action law- suits brought under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) and that trend continued in 2025. Many of these claims relate to the fees charged to plan participants and the range of investments offered and their cost. In 2022, the US Supreme Court issued a ruling that eased the burden for an ERISA suit to avoid dismissal at the initial pleading stage − the result of
1224 CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook