Generally in law you use a law dictionary, e.g. http://thelawdictionary.org/procurement/, which defines it as "the entire process of purchasing goods". "Entire" there suggests a broad term, hence interpreted inclusively in the context it appears. So in context it's probably something like "commercial use". But there are other questions of applicability, e.g. whether the legislature intended that sentence to only apply to financial loan decisions. It seems like there's no indicator of legislative intent on the original bill https://openstates.org/il/bills/96th/HB1015/, hence it would probably be the plain meaning as an independent clause, but IANAL...
In my experience (7 years as a corporate lawyer), a law dictionary would only be consulted for legal terms of art, which "procurement" is not. For most terms, a regular dictionary definition is used.
At any rate, I don't see how the definition cited would clear up the matter. It's a big leap from "the entire process of purchasing goods" to "commercial use". Like "use", which I discuss above, "commercial use" is a common term of art, and it would be strange to say "procurement" if what you mean is "commercial use".
Well, I was trying to shift the focus to "automated valuation model". That's used in other places and seems to be a term of the art in finance, e.g. this Kansas consumer bill: http://kslegislature.com/li_2016/b2015_16/measures/documents... Hence Zillow probably doesn't qualify, since it doesn't do loans or banking.
But the courts are so random; I'm guessing this case will be determined primarily by how much the judge that gets assigned likes technology. It'll be interesting to follow up on.
