USA – ILLINOIS Trends and Developments Contributed by: Steven P Blonder, Much Shelist
the brakes to be pushed on the filing of these lawsuits. Moreover, US states such as Illinois have statutes regarding the collection and storage of biometric information. As businesses have digitised many of their security, payroll and time-keeping func- tions, they have (often) inadvertently run afoul of state laws providing for the storage, collection and use of such information. This has led to a plethora of litigation that is poised to continue. The trend for new suits in this regard has sig- nificantly slowed as most companies adopted the consents and other documents necessary to insulate themselves from liability. Yet a num- ber of such suits remain pending and, as further states adopt laws regarding the collection and storage of biometric information, this trend may reverse. The next wave of these suits may be lurking around the corner as companies gather genetic information. The collection of genetic informa- tion is governed by federal law as well as state statutes, often providing for steep penalties. These laws prohibit enquiries into family medical history, among other things, in connection with employment. In 2023, more than 20 class action lawsuits were filed alleging violation of the Illinois statute in this regard ‒ a trend that continued throughout 2024. Technology has also led to increased litigation is in the trade secret arena. The odds of a compa- ny unwittingly finding another company’s trade secret on its computer system or experiencing an unplanned disclosure 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 work-
ers 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, thus far, 2024 is no exception to this trend. Suits relating to employee non-compete agree- ments used to clog up court dockets. Now, as the federal government has taken steps to curtail the enforceability of such non-compete agree- ments 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 cli- ents have become more aware of the legal pro- tections 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 busi- ness drivers instead of seeking protection under the patent laws. Financial drivers such as cus- tomer lists, algorithms, and other proprietary technology or business methods enjoy better protection as trade secrets, which essentially enables companies to continue to derive eco- nomic value from their protected secrets in per- petuity. As workforces with access to confidential and proprietary information remain increasingly remote, and workers display an increased will- ingness to speak out about business practices they do not agree with, the necessity for busi- nesses 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 company’s most valuable assets; put another way, they are often a company’s “crown jewels”. Well-known examples include the for-
1490 CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook