Legal Funding Journal is dedicated to informing and engaging the global legal funding community through daily news, insight, analysis and original content.

Justice Michael Lee has appointed two barristers as contradictors to scrutinise the commission a litigation funder is seeking from a record A$750 million settlement of two Toyota class actions — the largest funder commission ever sought in an Australian class action.

As reported by Lawyerly, the appointment marks a change of heart by the judge, who will now have independent counsel test Balance Legal Capital's proposed A$244 million share before deciding whether to approve it. Contradictors are appointed precisely because a commission application would otherwise go unopposed, with both the applicants and the respondent supporting approval.

The proceedings concern allegedly defective diesel particulate filters and have already produced significant precedent. In Williams v Toyota Motor Corporation Australia Limited [2022] FCA 344, the Federal Court made the first aggregate damages award under section 33Z(1)(e) of the Federal Court of Australia Act in favour of a funded litigant, with roughly 260,000 vehicle owners in the class. At that stage the funder had sought a commission of up to 25%.

The contradictor mechanism has materially reduced funder returns before. In the Robodebt class action, a contradictor argued that A$23 million was the appropriate commission against the funder's A$71 million request from a A$548.5 million settlement — a reduction of close to two-thirds.

The outcome will be closely watched by funders active in the Australian market, where commission approval has become the principal point at which courts exercise control over the economics of funded class actions.

A funded class action filed in Australia's Federal Court alleges that Meta Platforms exposed children to harmful content on Facebook and Instagram and kept them engaged through addictive design features. It is understood to be the first Australian case to attribute harm to social media platforms.

As reported by Al Jazeera, the action is funded by Litigation Lending Services and was filed by MinterEllison on behalf of eight plaintiffs who say they were harmed while under the age of 18. The funder said it was backing the claim for Australian families who "would have no practical means of pursuing these claims against a global technology giant."

The Federal Court in Sydney has issued a suppression order restricting publication of the statement of claim and the identities of the applicants. A Meta spokesperson said the company is "aware of this claim and we will defend ourselves vigorously," with HSF Kramer acting for the defence. MinterEllison partner William Nolan said the proceeding "raises important questions about the design and operation of social media platforms and their impact on children and teenagers in Australia."

The funding structure reflects standard Australian practice, where class actions are typically backed by third-party funders taking a percentage of any recovery rather than run on contingency by the firm itself. The case follows Australia's December 2025 minimum-age rules, which require platforms including Facebook and Instagram to take reasonable steps to prevent children under 16 from holding accounts, and Meta's agreement in August to pay up to $17.1 billion to resolve claims brought by a coalition of US state attorneys-general.

The matter returns to court on November 3.

The Advisory Committee on Civil Rules met on October 21 and again stopped short of committing to a nationwide rule requiring disclosure of third-party litigation funding, leaving the question unresolved more than a decade after it first reached the committee.

As reported by MLex, two pieces of research shaped the discussion. A Federal Judicial Center study by Emery Lee reviewed funding disclosures filed in the District of New Jersey between June 2021 and June 2026 and identified few clear trends. Earlier work had found funding concentrated in patent cases before a single judge in the District of Delaware.

The proposal before the committee comes from the Institute for Legal Reform and Lawyers for Civil Justice, submitted on March 10. It would amend Rule 26(a)(1)(A) to require parties to identify any nonparty funder and produce the funding agreement. The International Legal Finance Association filed an opposition on October 7, docketed as Rules Suggestion 26-CV-42, pointing to the committee's own agenda book, which acknowledged that disclosure "may provide the opposing party with a guide to exhausting its opponent's resources."

Pressure continues to build outside the rulemaking process. A September letter signed by 214 companies, among them Amazon, Google, Microsoft, ExxonMobil, Meta and Ford, argued that Rules 17, 7.1 and 26(a)(1)(A)(iv) already compel analogous disclosures. In Congress, Senator Chuck Grassley introduced the Litigation Funding Transparency Act of 2026 (S.3826) in February, and Representative Darrell Issa has advanced a House counterpart. Individual courts have moved independently, with both the Western District of Louisiana and the Delaware Superior Court adopting local disclosure rules.

For context on pace, Rule 16.1, the federal rule governing MDL management, took seven years from proposal to adoption.

The law firm holding the largest book of UK motor finance claims has called for a temporary blanket ban on all advertising for such claims, arguing that duplicate representation must be resolved before consumers are marketed to further.

As reported by Legal Futures, Courmacs Legal — a North-West firm acting for 1.6 million clients across four million claims — wants the duplicate claims problem fixed first. The Financial Conduct Authority estimates that more than a million complaints have multiple representatives, with instances of consumers signing the same claim with as many as 20 different representatives. Those consumers risk incurring multiple termination fees. Courmacs stopped its own marketing a year ago.

The firm also called on the joint taskforce on motor finance claims — comprising the Solicitors Regulation Authority, the FCA, the Advertising Standards Authority and the newly renamed Information Commission — to examine the FCA's own advertising posture, noting that regulator representatives "made public statements threatening to pull its redress scheme while also still advertising to consumers that they must trust in the redress scheme."

Speaking at the Claims Futures conference, managing director Darren Smith said the taskforce "is absolutely right to have been cracking down on aggressive practices and poor handling of motor finance claims," but that "more drastic action is needed immediately if the industry can be seen as trustworthy, transparent and truly putting the consumer's interest first." He urged other firms to support the ban and proposed a roundtable involving the FCA, SRA, consumer organisations and industry.

An FCA spokesman said: "We are defending our scheme as the best way to compensate consumers. Whatever the outcome of the legal challenges, consumers' complaints would still need to be dealt with."

Class actions before the UK's Competition Appeal Tribunal counted more than 750 million members by the end of last year, an increase of 80 million over the prior twelve months, with a cumulative claimed value exceeding £151 billion.

As reported by Legal Futures, research from law firm CMS found the total value rose by almost £17 billion on 2024. The composition has also shifted: opt-out claims now account for £85.6 billion against £65.6 billion for opt-in actions, reversing the previous pattern in which opt-in claims made up the majority. Membership has climbed steadily, from 560 million in 2023 to 671 million in 2024 and 752 million last year.

For the first time, big tech is the most exposed defendant sector, surpassing the stated value of the Mariana Dam litigation by approximately £8 billion. Natural resources and energy, financial products and automotive follow. CMS expects the trend to continue and to generate new claim categories, including social media addiction and claims relating to artificial intelligence.

The European Class Action Report 2026 recorded 38 UK claims issued last year, recovering from 33 in 2024. The report describes the UK as "one of the highest, if not the highest, risk jurisdictions in Europe," citing a well-developed claimant bar with close ties to US plaintiff firms, broad disclosure rules, "a sophisticated litigation funding market" and procedural mechanisms that facilitate class actions.

The UK accounted for 36% of European class actions last year, more than double its nearest rival Portugal. Italy followed at 12%, then Austria and the Netherlands. Competition claims remain the most common category, alongside a clear increase in product liability and personal injury filings.

The regulatory map for third-party litigation funding has shifted decisively toward disclosure, with more than 20 states now requiring some form of transparency around outside capital in litigation. With the state-level picture largely settled, attention is turning to the federal courts.

As reported by Insurance Business, a new issues brief from the Insurance Information Institute (Triple-I) documents the pace of legislative activity. "Litigation funding has operated in the shadows for too long," said Triple-I CEO Sean Kevelighan, adding that "transparency in litigation funding is the logical next step."

North Carolina's HB 315 is the most restrictive measure enacted to date, banning litigation investment outright and carrying civil penalties of up to $50,000 per violation. Other 2026 laws — Ohio HB 105, Mississippi SB 2747, Tennessee HB 2108 and Utah HB 280 — focus on registration and disclosure requirements, restrictions on foreign funding, and limits on funder control over litigation decisions.

Federal action has been slower. The Litigation Funding Transparency Act was introduced in February but has not advanced. In March, the US Chamber Institute for Legal Reform and Lawyers for Civil Justice petitioned the Federal Civil Rules Advisory Committee for a uniform disclosure standard, drawing support from more than 200 major US companies, including dozens of insurers. The request may be taken up at the committee's October 21 meeting. The Western District of Louisiana introduced a standing order in September, though most federal judges continue to decide disclosure case by case.

Triple-I and the Casualty Actuarial Society estimate legal system abuse added between $231.6 billion and $281.2 billion to liability insurance losses over the past decade. Swiss Re puts the global litigation funding market at roughly $17 billion, projected to reach $31 billion by 2028.

Chariot Claims has closed a $10 million Series A round to expand a platform that sources and pre-qualifies consumer claims for mass arbitration, bringing total funding to $15.7 million.

As reported by LawNext, the round was led by Silverton Partners, with general partner Mike Dodd participating, alongside Indicator Ventures, Lightbank, Neon Fund, ZVC, Rosecliff, Alumni Ventures, FJ Labs, Graph Ventures and Vermilion. The company previously raised a $3.6 million seed round led by Indicator Ventures in April 2025.

Founded in 2023 as ClaimClam and rebranded in 2025, the company is led by chief executive Zim Hang. It generates more than 200,000 pre-qualified claims a month across roughly 80 active corporate cases. Chariot Claims is not a law firm.

The business is built on a participation gap. Only about 4% of harmed consumers file claims, and the company reports that its users recover an average of roughly $460, compared with the $32 average identified in a Consumer Financial Protection Bureau analysis of class action distributions.

Proceeds will fund investment in artificial intelligence and expansion into children's data privacy, financial privacy and healthcare privacy claims, as well as defences against corporate retaliation. The company has more than doubled its headcount.

The raise reflects continued investor appetite for claim aggregation infrastructure, which sits adjacent to litigation finance and increasingly competes with it for the same consumer-facing claim volume.

The long-running rugby concussion group litigation has been pulled back from collapse after an eleventh-hour £1.5m payment satisfied a court-ordered costs liability owed to World Rugby and the Rugby Football Union.

As reported by Yahoo Sports, commercial litigation funder Asertis remained in place after the claimants changed law firms, meaning the costs order could be met. Had the payment not been made, the claims of roughly 1,000 former players would have been at risk.

The payment follows a reprieve granted in August, when Senior Master Jeremy Cook handed down a 13,500-word judgment granting relief from sanction in principle after Richard Boardman's Rylands Garth was replaced by KP Law. The claims of Phil Vickery and Steve Thompson had previously been ruled strike-out-worthy. Defendants had sought more than £2.8m in total, with Rugby Union costs assessed at £2.5m across World Rugby, the RFU and the WRU, and 60% ordered on an interim basis.

The litigation is not out of danger. Some 377 claimants still face automatic dismissal unless medical records are provided by the end of the month.

The episode is a clear illustration of a funder's role beyond case capital. Where a claimant group incurs an adverse costs order mid-proceeding, the funder's willingness to stand behind it determines whether the litigation continues at all. Asertis's decision to remain committed through a change of solicitor preserved a case begun in 2022.

Mixed martial arts fighters suing the UFC over alleged wage suppression are pushing back against the organisation's effort to obtain information about the litigation funding behind their case, characterising the request as a distraction from the merits of the antitrust claims.

As reported by Law360, the fighters' opposition follows the UFC's move earlier this month to press a Nevada federal judge to pull back the curtain on who is financing the proceedings. The dispute arises in Johnson et al v. Zuffa, LLC et al, No. 2:21-cv-01189, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada. The October 15 report was written by Alex Lawson.

The case was filed in June 2021 by Kajan Johnson and C.B. Dollaway against Zuffa and Endeavor Group Holdings, and covers fighters competing from 2017 onward. It is the successor to Le v. Zuffa, which settled for $375 million covering bouts between December 2010 and June 2017 and received final approval from Judge Richard F. Boulware in February 2025 without any accompanying changes to the UFC's business practices.

Funding discovery has become a standard defence tactic in large antitrust and class proceedings, and the fighters' objection tracks arguments made by claimants elsewhere: that the identity of a funder is irrelevant to liability. The case has already generated other discovery friction, including a sanctions motion in February over alleged evidence destruction.