Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, TORT CLAIMS—N.D. Ill.: Gum manufacturer’s trade secret claims over sales data largely survive dismissal challenge, (Aug 17, 2026)

By Ravindra Kumar Singh, B.L.

A gum manufacturer plausibly alleged that its confidential sales and customer information qualified as trade secrets and that former personnel disclosed the information without authorization.

A federal district court in Illinois has allowed a chewing-gum manufacturer’s federal and Illinois trade secret misappropriation claims to proceed against its former sales and marketing executive and the managing partner of its brand licensor, but dismissed the claims against the licensor’s chief financial officer for failure to plausibly allege the required knowledge. The court also dismissed the manufacturer’s breach-of-contract claim against the former executive for failure to allege measurable damages and dismissed two intentional interference claims against the managing partner (Ford Gum & Machine Co., Inc. v. Heiser, No. 1:25-cv-13301 (N.D. Ill. Aug. 7, 2026)).

Background. Ford Gum & Machine Company, Inc. manufactures, sells, and distributes shredded chewing gum under the Big League Chew brand, which it licenses from Big League Chew Properties, LLC. Its affiliate, Ford Gum Specialties, Inc. (FGS), sells personalized Big League Chew products through two websites. Brian Heiser, through BRH Consulting, LLC, formerly served as Ford Gum’s director of marketing and later vice president of sales and marketing before beginning work for Big League Chew in 2024. Brian Bailey and his company, BLCP Management, LLC, began working with Big League Chew, with BLCP becoming its managing partner in 2025. Lisa James served as Big League Chew’s chief financial officer and reported to Bailey.

Ford Gum identified its asserted trade secrets as confidential financial and customer information, including sales, revenue, pricing, profit and margin information, customer identities, revenue projections, customer-specific SKU data, and sales reports. Specific materials included its 2023 forecast identifying customers and expected monthly revenue, 2024 sales information, annual royalty-report data, and detailed sales information broken down by customer and product. Ford Gum alleged that it restricted access on a need-to-know basis, used password-protected systems and confidentiality agreements, and required employees to return confidential information upon termination of employment.

Ford Gum alleged that Heiser retained confidential materials after leaving the company and later made a series of disclosures at Bailey’s direction. He allegedly provided the 2023 forecast and related sales estimates to CandyRific, a competitor that shared them with another competitor; sent sales data to Plant Automation Group; and disclosed 2024 revenue and customer-level sales information to Impact Confections. Bailey later opened discussions with Illinois-based Kua LLC about replacing Ford Gum as Big League Chew’s exclusive licensee. After Kua requested financial statements and sales information broken down by SKU and customer, James asked Heiser for the information, reviewed it with him, and ultimately sent information to Kua and Impact Confections. Ford Gum alleged that it never authorized these disclosures. It filed suit in October 2025, asserting DTSA and Illinois Trade Secrets Act (ITSA) claims, breach of contract, and intentional interference claims. All three groups of defendants moved to dismiss.

Jurisdiction. The court first rejected James’s and Bailey’s jurisdictional challenges to the trade secret claims. Their alleged conduct created sufficient Illinois contacts because James requested Ford Gum information from Illinois-based Heiser and transmitted it to Illinois-based Kua, while Bailey initiated discussions with Kua and allegedly directed the information transfer. Their contacts therefore involved conduct purposefully directed at Illinois rather than merely injury suffered by an Illinois company. The court distinguished Walden v. Fiore, 571 U.S. 277 (2014), where the forum connection arose only from the injured parties’ residence. Here, the challenged conduct itself connected James and Bailey to Illinois. The court nevertheless lacked jurisdiction over the separate business-interference claim against Bailey concerning approval of FGS’s product packaging because the conduct underlying that claim was not purposefully directed at Illinois.

Trade secret status. Ford Gum adequately alleged protectable trade secrets under both statutes. Citing NEXT Payment Solutions, Inc. v. CLEAResult Consulting, Inc., 163 F.4th 1091 (7th Cir. 2026), the court explained that DTSA protection required reasonable secrecy measures and independent economic value arising from the information’s secrecy. Ford Gum alleged substantially more than ordinary password protection: it limited access, imposed confidentiality obligations, password-protected its systems, and required the return of information. Its customer-specific sales information and revenue projections also allegedly gave it a competitive advantage because they were not publicly available. The company therefore plausibly alleged both statutory requirements.

Misappropriation. The complaint also plausibly alleged unauthorized disclosure by Heiser and Bailey. Ford Gum identified particular documents, recipients, and occasions on which information was allegedly disclosed, and expressly alleged that it never consented to those disclosures. The court rejected the defendants’ contention that Ford Gum’s licensing agreement permitted Big League Chew to distribute the information. Although the agreement gave the licensor access to financial information, its confidentiality provision broadly protected “all confidential and proprietary information” belonging to Ford Gum and limited its use to purposes of the licensing agreement. Big League Chew’s access rights therefore did not authorize disclosure to Ford Gum’s competitors.

Claims against CFO. James obtained a different result because the complaint did not plausibly allege that she knew or had reason to know that the information she disclosed was subject to confidentiality obligations. The DTSA required such knowledge when liability rested on disclosure of information acquired through another person. Ford Gum’s assertions that all defendants knew the information was confidential amounted to conclusions unsupported by factual allegations concerning James’s knowledge. The court therefore dismissed the DTSA and ITSA claims against her without prejudice despite finding personal jurisdiction over her.

Contract claim. Ford Gum’s breach-of-contract claim against Heiser also failed, although the complaint plausibly alleged violation of his separation agreement’s confidentiality provision. The defect was damages. Ford Gum did not allege that it had actually lost its exclusive Big League Chew license or suffered another measurable loss from the disclosures. Relying on Sirius Computer Solutions, Inc. v. Sachs, No. 20-cv-1432, 2021 WL 1577798 (N.D. Ill. Apr. 22, 2021), the court held that threatened competitive harm without an alleged actual loss did not satisfy the damages element of an Illinois contract claim. It dismissed the claim without prejudice.

Interference claims. Bailey defeated both intentional interference claims. The business-relationship claim concerning the MyBigLeagueChew.com packaging callout was dismissed for lack of personal jurisdiction. As to alleged interference with Heiser’s separation agreement, Illinois law conditionally protected corporate agents exercising business judgment for their corporations. Under Webb v. Frawley, 906 F.3d 569 (7th Cir. 2018), Ford Gum needed to allege facts showing that Bailey acted to advance personal interests or injure Ford Gum contrary to Big League Chew’s interests. It failed to do so, requiring dismissal of that claim as well. The court separately rejected Bailey’s claim-splitting argument because the record did not establish that he or BLCP Management was in privity with Big League Chew in separate pending trademark and trade dress litigation.

Outcome. The court granted in part and denied in part the dismissal motions filed by Heiser and BRH Consulting and by Bailey and BLCP Management, while granting James’s motion. The DTSA and ITSA misappropriation claims proceeded against Heiser, BRH Consulting, Bailey, and BLCP Management. All claims against James, the contract claim against Heiser and BRH Consulting, and the intentional interference claims against Bailey and BLCP Management were dismissed without prejudice.

The Case is No. 1:25-cv-13301.

Judge: Alexakis, G.

Attorneys: Laura Lindsay Chapman (Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP) for Ford Gum & Machine Co., Inc. Edward W. Feldman (Miller Shakman Levine & Feldman LLP) for Brian Heiser.

Companies: Ford Gum & Machine Co., Inc.

Cases: TortClaims ContractClaims Procedure IllinoisNews