Additional case law has been added to the proposition that a “product” can include items such as software. In Penzick v. Constrafor Inc., 25 C 4555 N.D. Ill. (Jan. 29, 2026) (Durkin, J.), Judge Durkin called the argument that “software is intangible property” and thus not a product “an obsolete perspective.” Defendant moved to dismiss Count I of Plaintiff’s Complaint, which was brought under the Illinois Sales Representative Act (“SRA”). 820 ILCS 120/1(1). Defendant argued that it was not liable under the SRA as a “principal” because, under the SRA a principal must manufacture, produce, import, or distribute a product for sale. 820 ILCS 120/1(3)(A). The Court was not convinced by Defendant’s argument that a “product” must be a “tangible good” as it had been defined in an Illinois Supreme Court case from 1981. Judge Durkin focused on the new wave of cases and legislation to support a more updated definition of “product” and found that Plaintiff’s Complaint had sufficiently alleged the Defendant as a principal under the SRA.

By Amanda Burns, Caffarelli & Associates Ltd.