Because we have determined that plaintiff's proposal was not a trade secret as contemplated in the Act, we need not address whether the proposal was misappropriated under the Act. Accordingly the trial court's grant of summary judgment on this count is affirmed. We agree with the trial court that because plaintiff's proposal does not constitute a trade secret under Illinois law, this count must also fail. Therefore, we affirm the trial court's grant of summary judgment on this count. Unjust enrichment claim As noted by the trial court, this claim must also fail, as unjust enrichment is preempted by the Illinois Trade Secrets Act.
Unjust enrichment is essentially a claim for restitution.
Thus, under the Act, plaintiff's claim must fail. The fact that the proposal contained instructions regarding the use of this well-known, commercially available container for application of the product does not change this analysis. American consumers for the sale of relaxer products. We find that plaintiff's product could be easily duplicated and her proposal was based on information generally available within the hair care industry and to the general public, therefore, her proposal does not constitute a protectable trade secret under Illinois law. Based on the foregoing analysis, we affirm the summary judgment of the trial court.