Articles Posted in Best Business And Class Action Lawyers Near Chicago

|

Every data incident in 2026 produces the same playbook. A plaintiffs’ firm files a class action. The complaint pleads breach of contract. It pleads invasion of privacy. It pleads a federal statutory claim. And, almost always, it pleads negligence.

The negligence count usually says some version of the same thing. The defendant owed a duty to safeguard the plaintiff’s personal information, the defendant breached that duty by allowing the data to be exposed or transmitted, and the plaintiff suffered damages including diminished data value, anxiety, lost time, and lost benefit of the bargain.

Illinois law has a problem with this count. Two problems, actually.

The first problem is that there is no freestanding common law duty in Illinois to safeguard another person’s data. The second problem is that even if there were such a duty, Illinois’s economic loss doctrine, known as the Moorman doctrine, would bar recovery for the kinds of damages plaintiffs typically plead.

Both problems are dispositive at the motion to dismiss stage when the defense is built carefully.

The duty problem is settled by the Seventh Circuit. In Community Bank of Trenton v. Schnuck Markets, Inc., the court held that the Illinois Supreme Court has not recognized an independent common law duty to safeguard personal information. The court applied that holding to a data breach class action and dismissed the negligence claim. The Illinois Appellate Court reached the same conclusion in Cooney v. Chicago Public Schools, where the court rejected an attempt to use HIPAA, the federal medical privacy statute, as the source of a state law duty to safeguard data.

These holdings are not technicalities. They are reflections of how the duty element works in Illinois negligence law. A duty does not arise from a vague feeling that information should be protected. A duty arises from a relationship recognized by law, a statute that creates a private cause of action, or a common law rule the Illinois Supreme Court has actually adopted. When none of those exists, there is no duty, and there is no negligence.

Plaintiffs sometimes argue that the physician patient relationship, the merchant customer relationship, or the employer employee relationship is enough. Federal courts in Illinois have rejected those arguments in the data context. In Doe v. Genesis Health System, decided in 2025, the Central District of Illinois applied Community Bank and Cooney directly to a healthcare website tracking case and dismissed the negligence count. The court explained that the relationship based theory does not change the rule. If the Illinois Supreme Court has not recognized the duty, a federal court sitting in diversity will not invent it.

The second problem is the Moorman doctrine.

Moorman Manufacturing Co. v. National Tank Co. is one of the most cited cases in Illinois law. The Illinois Supreme Court held in 1982 that a plaintiff cannot recover in negligence for purely economic loss. Economic loss means losses that are not personal injury and are not damage to other property. Diminished data value is economic loss. Lost benefit of the bargain is economic loss. Lost time is economic loss. Anxiety and emotional distress are not personal injuries in this context. Each of those theories runs into the Moorman bar.

The reason this matters is that data class action complaints almost always allege economic loss as the principal damage theory. Without economic loss damages, the negligence count loses most of its monetary value. Without an actual breach of contract or a separate statutory cause of action, the case shrinks dramatically.

Three points are worth highlighting for any Illinois business defending a data related lawsuit. Continue reading ›

|

A new wave of class action lawsuits is sweeping into the Northern District of Illinois. The defendants are not telecom companies. They are healthcare practices, retailers, fintech companies, telehealth platforms, employers running candidate portals, and any business with a website that uses analytics or advertising tools.

The legal theory is the same in almost every case. The plaintiff alleges that a tracking pixel, often the Meta pixel, the TikTok pixel, or the Google tag, captured information the user typed into the defendant’s website and quietly transmitted that information to a third party advertising platform. The plaintiff then alleges that this transmission violated the federal Electronic Communications Privacy Act, also known as the Wiretap Act, 18 U.S.C. section 2511.

The financial pressure of these cases is enormous. The Wiretap Act allows statutory damages of the greater of $100 per day or $10,000 per plaintiff, plus attorney fees. Multiplied across a putative class of website visitors, the demand letter is designed to force a settlement. That math is the plaintiffs’ bar’s business model.

There is a powerful defense to most of these cases. It is called the party exception, and Illinois federal courts are increasingly willing to enforce it.

The party exception is not buried in a regulatory annex. It is in the statute itself. 18 U.S.C. section 2511(2)(d) provides that the prohibition on intercepting electronic communications does not apply where one of the parties to the communication has consented, or where the defendant is itself a party to the communication. When a customer or patient fills out a form on your website, the customer’s communication is being directed at you. You are not eavesdropping on someone else. You are the recipient.

That sounds obvious. It is also dispositive in most pixel cases when the defense is properly pleaded.

The Northern District of Illinois has issued a series of decisions applying this exact logic. In Kurowski v. Rush System for Health, the court held that Rush, not Facebook or Google or a downstream ad platform, was the intended recipient of the patient communications submitted through Rush’s website and patient portal. Sloan v. Anker Innovations Ltd. went further, holding that even where a defendant later uploads information to a third party server, the defendant remains a party to the original communication, not a non party interceptor. The Zak v. Bose Corp. line of cases rejected the plaintiffs’ bar’s relabeling tactic of recasting the website operator as a redirector of someone else’s data flow. And in Doe v. Genesis Health System, the court explained the principle in plain language. The communications could not have occurred without the plaintiff communicating with the defendant as the intended recipient and party.

What this means in practice is that when a plaintiff sues your business for embedding analytics on your own website that collected information the plaintiff voluntarily submitted to your business, you have a real defense at the motion to dismiss stage. The defense does not require discovery. It does not require expert testimony. It requires careful pleading and an early motion that frames the issue correctly. Continue reading ›

|

If you operate a healthcare practice, a telehealth platform, a behavioral health clinic, a fertility center, an addiction treatment facility, a dental or optometry chain, or any consumer facing business that handles sensitive information online, you have probably heard about the new generation of class action lawsuits over tracking pixels.

The lawsuits target businesses that embed third party tools like the Meta pixel, the TikTok pixel, or Google Analytics on their websites. The complaints allege that the tools captured information about a user’s interactions and transmitted that information to advertising platforms without consent.

In most of these cases, the defendant has a strong defense built into the federal Wiretap Act itself. When a user submits information to your website, you are a party to the communication, and 18 U.S.C. section 2511(2)(d) excludes parties from liability under the statute.

Plaintiffs know about that defense, so they have a workaround. They invoke the same subsection’s other clause, the so called crime tort exception. It provides that the party exception does not apply if the communication was intercepted for the purpose of committing any criminal or tortious act. Plaintiffs typically plead a HIPAA violation, an invasion of privacy claim, or both, as the predicate.

The question is whether this workaround survives.

That question is now actively splitting the federal courts in Illinois. The split is real, current, and important enough that one judge has already certified it for interlocutory appeal.

In the defense friendly camp, Doe v. Genesis Health System, decided by the United States District Court for the Central District of Illinois in 2025, held the answer is no. The court read the statute carefully and concluded that the defendant must have intercepted the communication for the purpose of committing a crime or a tort. Marketing and advertising purposes, the court held, do not satisfy that standard, because lawful commercial activity, even when it ultimately runs afoul of HIPAA’s regulatory scheme, is not the same as acting in order to commit a crime or tort. The Seventh Circuit articulated a similar principle years earlier in Thomas v. Pearl and again in Desnick v. American Broadcasting Cos. The recorder must intend to break the law or commit a tort. That intent is the heart of the carve out.

Doe 1 v. Chestnut Health Systems, Inc., decided in 2025, took the same path and dismissed a complaint that recited criminal or tortious purpose in conclusory terms. The court held that a conclusory recital will not do.

In the plaintiff friendly camp, Stein v. Edward-Elmhurst Health, decided in 2025, went the other way. The court held that a HIPAA violating disclosure can satisfy the carve out even when the defendant’s overall purpose was lawful commercial advertising. The same court later denied reconsideration but explicitly certified the question for interlocutory appeal, finding substantial ground for difference of opinion. That certification is itself a tell. When a federal trial court is comfortable enough with the strength of the opposing view to permit an immediate appeal, the law is genuinely unsettled.

What does this mean for Illinois businesses? Three things. Continue reading ›

|

Most business owners will never see the inside of an appellate courtroom, and that is a good thing. Appeals are expensive, time consuming, and usually happen after a case has already chewed up months or years. But the mindset of an appellate lawyer, the discipline of precision and the obsession with the record, can make the difference in the trial court long before any appeal is filed.

James V. DiTommaso did not become a lawyer because it sounded easy. On his attorney profile, he puts it plainly: he chose to become a lawyer because he wanted to be like his dad, the person people call when they are in a sticky situation. That is also why his litigation style is direct. When a client needs help, they do not need a lecture. They need a plan.

James has lived appellate pressure in a way very few attorneys ever experience. He argued a case before the Illinois Supreme Court, an experience that changes how you approach every case afterward. It happened in Yakich v. Aulds, a direct appeal that put a constitutional question in front of the state’s highest court. The case centered on Section 513 of the Illinois Marriage and Dissolution of Marriage Act, the statute dealing with a parent’s contribution to a non minor child’s educational expenses. The circuit court declared the statute unconstitutional as applied. The Illinois Supreme Court ultimately vacated that judgment and sent the matter back, emphasizing that lower courts are bound by Illinois Supreme Court precedent and do not have authority to overrule it.

The case was also a rare moment in Illinois legal history because it involved father and son lawyers appearing as counsel on both sides of the matter before the Supreme Court. That does not happen in routine litigation. It happens in cases that are serious, well briefed, and hard fought.

There are two ways to look at the Supreme Court’s result. One is academic. The other is practical.

The academic lesson is about stare decisis. In plain English, trial courts cannot decide they no longer like a Supreme Court case and ignore it. The practical lesson is more important for business litigation clients. When you are fighting in court, you have to know what the controlling law is today, not what you wish it was, and you have to build your strategy around it.

That is what appellate experience teaches.

In the Illinois Supreme Court, there is no room for vague arguments or sloppy storytelling. The questions come fast. The justices want to know where something is in the record. They want to know what rule controls. They want to know what the legal consequence is if they agree with you. There is nowhere to hide behind rhetoric. It is precision under pressure.

That same discipline applies to business disputes.

When a partnership fight breaks out, the “facts” are rarely clean. People remember meetings differently. Text messages are interpreted differently. Financial records can be spun. The side that wins is usually the side that turns chaos into clarity. That requires building a record that is defensible, documenting the story early, and anticipating what a judge will need to rule in your favor.

James approaches business litigation the way an appellate court reads it. What did we prove. What did we preserve. What did we make easy for the judge to adopt in a written order. That is not just a style choice. It is strategy.

Yakich v. Aulds also shows something else. High stakes litigation can be personal, but it is never only personal. The case involved a real family dispute, but the legal issue had broader implications because it challenged a statute that affects people across Illinois. In business disputes, it is the same. Your case feels unique, but the judge is thinking about rules, precedent, and the ripple effects of any order. Continue reading ›

|

A lot of lawyers say they are “trial lawyers.” Then the case gets real. The judge sets deadlines. The other side files a motion that actually matters. A key witness gets cold feet. The documents tell a story your client does not like. That is the moment when you find out whether your lawyer is built for the courtroom or built for paperwork.

James V. DiTommaso is built for the courtroom.

James earned his J.D. from Chicago-Kent College of Law, and if you know Chicago-Kent, you know what that means. Chicago-Kent is not known for producing lawyers who hide behind the comfort of endless letters and endless “let’s see what happens” litigation. Chicago-Kent is known for its trial advocacy culture. The school’s trial program has been a national leader for decades, and its trial teams have competed and won at the highest level, including National Trial Competition championships in 1988, 2007, 2008, and 2015. That kind of environment changes how a lawyer thinks. It teaches you that credibility is everything, preparation beats improvisation, and the courtroom is not a place to “try something” for the first time.

That mindset is exactly what business owners need when the dispute is not theoretical and the money is not monopoly money.

Business disputes are personal even when the legal issues are corporate. A partnership fight can destroy a company faster than any competitor. A fraud case can shake a client’s confidence in everyone around them. A dealership dispute can trigger lender panic and manufacturer scrutiny. In those moments, you do not want a lawyer who is learning on your time. You want someone who treats litigation like it is a profession, not a hobby.

Chicago-Kent teaches that litigation is a craft.

James’s background at Chicago-Kent was not just a diploma on a wall. He earned a Business Law Certificate, and he was on the Dean’s List. He also served on the Executive Board for the Chicago-Kent Justinian Society. That combination matters because it is the intersection of two worlds that most lawyers do not blend well. Trial focused thinking and business focused judgment. Clients need both.

Here is the problem we see over and over again. A business owner wants an aggressive litigator. But the owner also needs practical advice that does not burn the company down while the lawsuit is pending. Too many attorneys pick one lane. They either posture, fight, and turn every issue into a war, or they hesitate, negotiate too long, and let the other side take advantage of the delay. James’s style is different. The approach is disciplined. The case is built methodically. The pressure is applied strategically. The goal is to win, but to win in a way that protects the client’s business and leverage.

Trial advocacy is not about being loud.

A strong trial lawyer is calm under fire because they know what matters and what does not. They know the difference between a motion that is theatre and a motion that changes the outcome. They know how to pin down facts early so the other side cannot rewrite history later. They know how to turn a messy dispute into a clear story a judge can understand and a jury can repeat.

That is what trial training gives you. Not swagger. Structure.

James brings that structure to the cases he handles at DiTommaso Lubin, P.C. Whether it is a business ownership divorce, a breach of fiduciary duty claim, a non compete dispute, a defamation case, or a high stakes commercial lawsuit, the plan is the same. Build the record. Control the narrative. Force the other side to commit to positions early. Expose contradictions. Then use that work to either settle on strong terms or take the case through trial.

If you have never been through litigation, here is something you should know. The most important work happens long before anyone says “your honor” in a courtroom. It happens when your lawyer is choosing the claims and defenses that actually fit the facts. It happens when your lawyer is preparing you for the deposition you are not excited about. It happens when your lawyer is reading the financial records with the mindset of a cross examiner. It happens when your lawyer is deciding whether to file for emergency relief because the business cannot survive delay. Continue reading ›

|

The Pedigree Gap

Why Your Lawyer’s Academic Background Matters in the Courtroom Marketing can be bought, but a University of Chicago Law education is earned. When Peter Lubin steps into a courtroom, he brings a level of sophisticated analysis and peer-recognized skill that reshapes the case. Having been named the first “Law Firm of the Year” in DuPage County, we prove every day that elite academic credentials translated into aggressive trial work are the ultimate competitive advantage.

Modern Discovery & E-Discovery

Continue reading ›

|

The Myth of the Big Firm: Why Agility Wins in Modern Litigation

Many clients believe that a massive firm is required for a massive case. The reality? Huge firms are often slowed down by committee structures and bureaucratic oversight. At DiTommaso Lubin, we have the same access to top-tier experts and forensic data tools as any “Big Law” firm, but we operate with the speed of a fighter jet. When a trial shifts, we pivot in seconds—not after a firm committee meeting. We have handled very large and complex trials including trials that have lasted two years in one case and resulted in a judgment of over $20 million in closely held family business dispute involving serious breaches of fiduciary duty that required our lawyers with the help of forensic accounts, witness interviews and over 30 depositions to expose complex employee expense allocations where the controlling partner falsely allocated millions of dollars in employee expenses related to his solely owned business to family’s jointly owned business and also charged multi-million dollar management fees when he was charging for ghost employees who were only providing services to his business. In other words he was charging the joint entities millions of dollars in fees for supposedly keeping expenses down when in fact he was the one with his hands in the cookie jar. We have years of experience reviewing complex acccounting records and then using live witnesses to expose complex fiduciary fraud. We win cases through hard work and knowledge of complex business issues and fiduciary fraud schemes and not from simply being the loudest one in the court room. We know when to be calm and to negotiate like big firm lawyer and when to be “street fighters” but not in sense of fighting dirty but to fight hard and fair for our clients and to be the truth tellers in the courtroom that the judge and jury rely upon.  Our track record of wins and big settlements is the proof that our court room style works.

James DiTommaso: The Modern Problem Solver 

Continue reading ›

|

DiTommaso Lubin, P.C. announced today that it has formally launched a series of specialized practice groups designed to serve car dealerships, closely held and family businesses, media and internet clients, and high net worth individuals with both litigation and transactional needs.

DiTommaso Lubin, P.C. announced today that it has formally launched a series of specialized practice groups designed to serve car dealerships, closely held and family businesses, media and internet clients, and high net worth individuals with both litigation and transactional needs.
Continue reading ›

|

The New Reality: Accusations Before Investigation

In the modern environment, a single social-media post can trigger a storm of attention, formal investigations, and sometimes a lawsuit. We have dealt with this type of situtation in many of our lible and business control cases.

Our firm represents pleaintiffs and defendants in these highly chargds cases that sit at the intersection of social causes and modern defamation or business control law.

Discovery Battles Over PR Firm Documents

A major battleground in these case can be obtaining through discovery outside public relations firm documents  and communciations when the opposing side has relied on such a firm. Those documents can matter if for instance they show whether the lawsuit is a genuine attempt to vindicate a reputation—or part of a broader public-relations campaign and lawfare as opposed to legitimate libel or business control suit

Illinois law treats discovery as broadly relevant if it has any tendency to make a fact in issue more or less probable. A 2019 appellate decision reported at 2019 IL App (1st) 182354, ¶ 35, and another at 2017 IL App (1st) 161918, ¶ 14, emphasize that discovery is not limited to what will be admissible at trial, but also includes what may lead to admissible evidence. That principle supports our effort to obtain communications with the public relations firm that helped craft talking points, draft emails to classmates, and shape threats to witnesses.

Courts have also recognized that public-relations work is generally not protected as attorney work product, even if it touches on litigation strategy. Decisions reported at 265 Ill. App. 3d 654 (1st Dist. 1994), 329 F.R.D. 628 (N.D. Cal. 2019), and 290 F.R.D. 421 (S.D.N.Y. 2013) hold that communications with outside consultants like publicists are ordinarily discoverable. We rely on that authority to argue that the PR firm documents must be produced.

Defamation in the Age of Anonymous Accounts

Because the original accusations in some of cases were posted through social-media accounts that sometimes hid the poster’s identity, we also deal with the cutting edge of online defamation. We regularly work with subpoenas to platforms such as Yelp, Google and SnapChat, IP and device information, and cross-referencing of screenshots, deletion logs, and metadata to tie anonymous statements back to real people.

Our role is not to silence legitimate speech about misconduct, but to defend people who tell the truth and to prosecute peole who libel our clients.

What Sets Our Firm Apart in Defamation Work and Business Dispute Work

Our lawyers have handled complex  libel and business control suits that blend:

  • High-profile media coverage, social-media and PR campaigns;
  • Aggressive discovery disputes over expert witnesses, PR firms, and internal investigations.

Because we routinely litigate both defamation and business torts, we are comfortable with large-scale document collections, forensic email and text discovery, and cross-border issues when the parties and witnesses are in different states. Continue reading ›

|

Summary: Derivative suits let owners enforce the company’s rights when insiders won’t. Done right, they’re powerful. Done wrong, they’re dismissed. Here’s a field guide for LLCs and closely held corporations.

Who can sue and when?

LLCs: Members may sue derivatively under 805 ILCS 180/40‑1 when managers/members harm the company. Relief can include restitution, constructive trusts, injunctions, and fees—plus orders to stop unilateral withdrawals or restore records access.

Corporations: Shareholders proceed derivatively; the entity is the real party in interest. Oppression claims (for corporations) are addressed separately under 805 ILCS 5/12.56.

Pleading essentials (don’t get 2‑615’ed):

  • State your demand (or futility) with facts. If you didn’t ask the company to act, plead why demand would be futile with concrete details, not speculation. Judges read this closely on a motion to dismiss.

  • Name the company as a nominal defendant. It’s indispensable. Forget this and the case can’t proceed.

  • Mind “information and belief.” If you use it, plead the specific facts that support that belief and what you did to obtain records (or why you couldn’t). Courts reject fishing expeditions.

  • Don’t double‑count damages. Separate derivative (company) harms from individual claims; if your “personal” count just repackages company damages, expect dismissal.

  • Use the records statutes before you sue.

Continue reading ›

Contact Information
Chicago Office
19 S LaSalle St #702
Chicago, IL 60603
Phone: 630-333-0333
Mailing Address
17W220 22nd St #410
Oakbrook Terrace, IL 60181
Phone: 630-333-0333 Please direct all mail correspondence to our Oakbrook Terrace address office.
Highland Park Office
189 Whistler Rd
Highland Park, IL 60035
Phone: 630-710-4990
We accept the following credit cards
Credit Cards Accepted
We accept payment via Venmo at: @L-A-LAW
Phone: 603-333-0333
Visit our site: chicagobusinesslawfirm.com

Please do not include any confidential or sensitive information in a contact form, text message, or voicemail. The contact form sends information by non-encrypted email, which is not secure. Submitting a contact form, sending a text message, making a phone call, or leaving a voicemail does not create an attorney-client relationship.

Copyright © 2026, DiTommaso Lubin, PC
JUSTIA Law Firm Blog Design