A recently filed U.S. lawsuit is a useful reminder for UK businesses of the risks involved when sharing confidential information during commercial relationships. In January 2026 Nomi Beauty, a beauty‑tech start‑up, has issued proceedings against Estée Lauder in New York, alleging that the cosmetics giant misused confidential information and trade secrets disclosed during early discussions and under a later supply agreement.
What’s the dispute about?
Nomi Beauty claims it developed proprietary technology designed to collect and use consumer data across hotel retail, duty‑free and digital channels. Estée Lauder first engaged with Nomi in 2018 under a confidentiality agreement (akin to a Non-Disclosure Agreement), during which Nomi disclosed detailed information about its system architecture, data‑collection methods and commercial strategy. Ultimately Estee Lauder decided not to proceed with a purchase of Nomi and subsequently their relationship moved into a 2020 supply agreement, which Nomi says also contained wide‑ranging confidentiality protections. According to Nomi, Estée Lauder later abandoned the partnership by terminating the supply agreement and then launched similar programmes in the UK, China, Malaysia, Costa Rica and the U.S. using confidential know‑how originally supplied under the confidentiality agreement. It further alleges these programmes generated “billions” in revenue from Nomi’s prime markets and simultaneously weakened Nomi’s own operations by restricting supply to its hotel partners.
Estée Lauder has not yet commented on the claim but is reported to be preparing a strong defence.
Why this matters for UK businesses
Although the case will be determined under U.S. law (specifically Manhattan jurisdiction), the commercial themes are familiar. UK businesses frequently enter relationships where:
- confidential know‑how is shared early,
- technology, data or processes underpin value,
- one party has greater commercial leverage.
This dispute is a reminder that confidentiality, information‑use boundaries and commercial safeguards should be built into contracts from the outset, and that businesses must be clear on the steps available if those protections fail. Early disclosure is often required in order to assist with steps such as quantifying the business, but this attracts a high risk. The parties can contract out this risk from inception with a concrete NDA or strong contractual clauses dealing with the use of information throughout negotiations or dealings and on an ongoing basis.
Key takeaways for UK businesses
- Make confidentiality clauses specific and functional
Nomi’s case turns heavily on confidentiality obligations. In the UK, these clauses should:
- define the permitted purpose clearly,
- prohibit competitive use of information,
- require return or deletion on exit, and
- align with IP ownership and internal data governance.
Well‑drafted clauses reduce ambiguity and can often help avoid disputes entirely. In the UK, the principle of contra proferentem suggests that any ambiguity in a contract is interpreted to the benefit of the party who did not draft the contract. It is therefore imperative to get the contractual provisions right to ensure maximum protection.
- Define precisely how shared information may (and may not) be used
Where a counterparty needs visibility of technical or operational details, contracts should set out clear use‑restrictions. This not only protects commercial value but also supports stronger legal footing if concerns arise about misuse.
- Protect against commercial leverage that could destabilise the relationship
Nomi alleges its hotel‑retail operations were disrupted when product supply was reduced.
For UK businesses, supply obligations, allocation rules and service standards should be agreed up front to reduce opportunities for one party to weaken the other’s commercial position.
Any claims brought in damages as a result of a breach of such an agreement would be evidence based and require proof of both the breach and the subsequent damage caused. Whilst this can be difficult to quantify the terms agreed upon will evidence what it is the disclosing party sought to protect as a priority, which in turn can be used to value any damage felt as a result of a breach.
In the alternative, these clauses could support any application for an injunction to prevent further misuse of the information as the weight and importance of this information can be found documented within the agreement.
- Know your options if boundaries are crossed
If confidential information is misused, UK remedies may include breach of confidence actions, interim injunctions to prevent further misuse, and claims under the Trade Secrets (Enforcement, etc.) Regulations 2018. Time is of the essence for actions such as these and early action often allows for mitigation of losses and damage limitation.
Final thoughts
This dispute is a useful reminder of the importance of clear confidentiality protections and well‑structured agreements from the outset of any commercial relationship. It also highlights the need for businesses to act quickly if concerns arise during a partnership.
At Beyond Corporate, our Commercial team supports clients in putting in place practical, protective contracts, while our Dispute Resolution team advises on the legal position surrounding any alleged breach, whether Claimant or Defendant, and the available remedies. Together, we help businesses strengthen their contractual position from inception in order to manage risk effectively and respond with confidence if a breach occurs and subsequent issues develop.
If your organisation is entering new commercial arrangements or has concerns about the use of confidential information, our teams are here to help.
For advice on bringing or defending a claim, please contact our Dispute Resolution team at [email protected].
If you want to mitigate risk and prevent disputes, our Commercial team can ensure you have the right documents and protections in place, reach us at [email protected].
