FOIA section 7(1)(g)
FOIATrade secrets and confidential commercial/financial information
5 ILCS 140/7(1)(g). Trade secrets and confidential commercial/financial information
See every document citing this provision →
13 issues across 8 determination letters:6 violation found · 6 no violation · 1 no determination / resolved.
Counts are per issue, not per letter, and come from automated extraction checked against sampled letters. Determination letters are not binding precedent.
Authorities the Bureau cites most on this issue
- Chicago v. Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 2017 IL App (1st) 150870 ¶27, 78 N.E.3d at 455 (2017) cited 5 times
- Cooper v. Department of the Lottery, 266 Ill. App. 3d 1007, 1020 (1st Dist. 1994) cited 3 times
- BlueStar Energy Services, Inc. v. Illinois Commerce Commission, 374 Ill. App. 3d 990 (1st Dist. 2007) cited 2 times
- Developer cost records for a city-funded redevelopment project (Pub. Acc. Op. No. 18-004) cited 2 times
- Calhoun v. Lyng, 864 F.2d 34 (5th Cir. 1988) cited 2 times
- Manganese throughput reports submitted to a public health department (Pub. Acc. Op. No. 19-007) cited 1 times
How to challenge a denial on this issue
AI-generated summary of the decisions listed on this page, with each point linked to the letters it comes from. Determination letters are not binding precedent and this is not legal advice. Open the letter and check the PDF before relying on any point.
When a challenge is strong
- The public body makes only conclusory claims of competitive harm without specific facts about actual competition or how disclosure would cause substantial harm. The exemption requires clear and convincing evidence with specific facts; conclusory statements fail to meet that burden.Based on: n.d. · Audit reports on a board's real e… · n.d. · Animal research protocol and medi…
- The public body fails to show the records were furnished under a claim of confidentiality. Section 7(1)(g) requires that commercial information be obtained from a business under a claim of confidentiality; without that showing, the exemption does not apply.Based on: n.d. · Quarterly cost reports for Medica…
- The information is generic or relates to the public body's own operations rather than a third party's confidential commercial information. Information about the public body itself, or generic descriptions, does not fall within the exemption because competitors cannot exploit it to harm a third party.Based on: n.d. · Audit data on railcar component o… · n.d. · Audit data on railcar component o…
- The public body does not demonstrate that disclosure would cause actual competitive harm to a person or business. The public body must show competitive harm; a mere assertion is insufficient.Based on: n.d. · Lease agreements for business or …
When the public body usually wins
- The records contain commercial or financial information obtained from a business under a claim of confidentiality, and disclosure would allow competitors to copy unique methods or target suppliers. When the public body proves the information is commercial, furnished under a claim of confidentiality, and disclosure would cause substantial competitive harm, the exemption applies.Based on: n.d. · Training presentation on sexual h… · n.d. · Investment banking pitchbooks for… · n.d. · Investment banking pitchbooks for…
- The records are marketing materials like pitchbooks that are proprietary and marked confidential, with a longstanding understanding of confidentiality. Such materials are commercial information furnished under a claim of confidentiality, and disclosure would allow competitors to copy unique methods and analysis.Based on: n.d. · Investment banking pitchbooks for… · n.d. · Investment banking pitchbooks for… · n.d. · Investment banking pitchbooks for…
- The information reveals specific supplier percentages or component names that competitors could use to gain a bidding advantage. Competitors could use that information to target suppliers or maximize domestic content, causing competitive harm.Based on: n.d. · Audit data on railcar component o… · n.d. · Audit data on railcar component o…
Points to put in your letter
- Argue that the public body must provide specific facts showing actual competition and substantial competitive harm, not just conclusory statements.Based on: n.d. · Audit reports on a board's real e… · n.d. · Animal research protocol and medi…
- Point out that the public body failed to prove the records were furnished under a claim of confidentiality.Based on: n.d. · Quarterly cost reports for Medica…
- Show that the information is generic or relates to the public body's own activities, not a third party's trade secrets.Based on: n.d. · Audit data on railcar component o… · n.d. · Audit data on railcar component o…
- Emphasize that the public body has the burden to demonstrate competitive harm with clear and convincing evidence.Based on: n.d. · Lease agreements for business or … · n.d. · Audit reports on a board's real e…
Common mistakes
- Assuming that any commercial information is automatically exempt without showing competitive harm.Based on: n.d. · Lease agreements for business or … · n.d. · Audit reports on a board's real e…
- Failing to mark records as confidential when submitting them to the public body.Based on: n.d. · Investment banking pitchbooks for… · n.d. · Quarterly cost reports for Medica…
- Arguing that disclosure would cause competitive harm without providing specific facts about the market or competitors.Based on: n.d. · Animal research protocol and medi…
- Believing that a public body's own financial information is exempt under section 7(1)(g) when it is not commercial information obtained from a business.Based on: n.d. · Audit data on railcar component o…
Facts to gather first
- Whether the records contain any confidentiality markings or were submitted under an explicit claim of confidentiality.
- Whether the public body has provided specific examples of how disclosure would cause competitive harm.
- Whether the information is about the public body's own operations or a third party's commercial information.
- Whether the information is already publicly available or generic.
These notes are based on non-binding determination letters; outcomes depend on specific facts and the public body's evidence; always verify the full PDF for context.
Drafting brief for an AI assistant
Copy this into your assistant to help draft a request, appeal, or challenge to a denial that turns on this issue. It carries the rules and decisions, not your facts: add those yourself. Machine-readable version: foia-7-1-g.json.
Violation found (6)
Withholding lease under section 7(1)(g)
Rule: A public body must show disclosure would cause competitive harm to withhold records under the trade secret/commercial information exemption.
Violation found Lease agreements for business or remodeling licenses · April 10, 2024
Section 7(1)(g) exemption for MCO cost reports
Rule: The Department failed to show the cost reports were furnished under a claim of confidentiality or that disclosure would cause competitive harm.
Violation found Quarterly cost reports for Medicaid managed care organizations · December 19, 2019
Fourth request redactions under section 7(1)(g)
Rule: Trade secret exemption requires specific facts showing actual competition and substantial competitive harm; conclusory claims and public disclosure fail.
Violation found Audit reports on a board's real estate and investment activities · February 1, 2017
Redaction of sponsor and drug/device names as confidential commercial information
Rule: Conclusory claims of competitive harm without supporting facts do not meet the clear and convincing burden for exemption.
Violation found Animal research protocol and medical records · July 14, 2015
Percentages for Bombardier-supplied material in Post-Delivery Audit
Rule: Percentages for material Bombardier itself supplies are not exempt because competitors cannot exploit information about Bombardier to harm it.
Violation found Audit data on railcar component origins · July 22, 2016
Description of Work Final Assembly Requirements redactions
Rule: Most redacted Description of Work is generic and not exempt, but the cost of final assembly may be redacted as it could enable competitors to undercut Bombardier.
Violation found Audit data on railcar component origins · July 22, 2016
No violation (6)
Whether pitchbooks contain commercial or financial information
Rule: Pitchbooks are marketing materials relating to commerce and thus fall within the first prong of section 7(1)(g).
No violation Investment banking pitchbooks for pension bond sales · June 30, 2020
Whether records were furnished under a claim of proprietary, privileged, or confidential
Rule: A longstanding understanding that pitchbooks are proprietary, combined with confidentiality markings, establishes they were furnished under such a claim.
No violation Investment banking pitchbooks for pension bond sales · June 30, 2020
Whether disclosure would cause competitive harm to a person or business
Rule: Disclosure would allow competitors to copy unique marketing methods and analysis, causing substantial harm to competitive position.
No violation Investment banking pitchbooks for pension bond sales · June 30, 2020
Withholding PowerPoint presentation under section 7(1)(g)
Rule: A record is exempt under section 7(1)(g) if it contains commercial information obtained from a business under a claim of confidentiality and disclosure would cause competitive harm.
No violation Training presentation on sexual harassment · December 9, 2022
Percentages for outside suppliers in Post-Delivery Audit
Rule: Percentages for outside suppliers may be withheld because competitors could use them to target Bombardier's suppliers and submit more competitive bids.
No violation Audit data on railcar component origins · July 22, 2016
Buy America Compliance Certificates redactions
Rule: US%, Foreign%, and Subcomponent Name columns may be withheld because competitors could use supplier and component information to maximize US content in their bids.
No violation Audit data on railcar component origins · July 22, 2016
No determination / resolved (1)
Section 7(1)(g) exemption assertion not determined
Rule: Because the records were properly withheld under section 7(1)(f), the Public Access Bureau did not need to determine whether section 7(1)(g) also exempts them.
No determination / resolved An employee survey from 2015 · May 12, 2016