Amazon has revised its Conditions of Use to require consumers pursuing mass arbitration claims to disclose whether third-party litigation funders are backing them. The updated terms, effective 15 August 2026, oblige claimants to identify any relationship with a funder, produce copies of funding agreements, and reveal any financial interest in the claim that has been assigned or transferred to a third party.

As reported by Bloomberg Law, the move places Amazon alongside Uber, which has adopted comparable disclosure requirements as it faces thousands of passenger sexual assault claims. The provisions arrive as mass arbitration has become a significant pressure point for large consumer-facing companies.

An Amazon spokesperson said the company "continually update[s] our Conditions of Use to better serve our customers," adding that "reinstating the arbitration clause will offer customers a fast, cost-effective way to resolve disputes while still giving them the option of going to small claims court."

The industry response was sceptical. Dai Wai Chin Feman, U.S. chapter chair of the International Legal Finance Association, described the requirement as "one of many new tactics in Amazon's arbitration terms that would face serious enforceability challenges if ever tested." He also questioned its practical significance, noting that individual consumer claims are generally too small to attract third-party funding in the first place.

Amazon removed a similar arbitration clause in 2021 following a wave of Alexa privacy challenges. Since then it has faced class actions over allegedly unsafe products sold on its platform and over its Prime cancellation practices.

Omni Bridgeway has reported a sharply lower bottom line for FY26, with net profit after tax falling 89% to A$45.9 million even as statutory revenue rose 57% to A$106.5 million. Total income declined 72% to A$182.2 million, and profit attributable to members fell 85% to A$53.7 million. The funder declared no final dividend for the year.

As reported by The Motley Fool Australia, the steep percentage declines largely reflect a high comparison base rather than a deterioration in the underlying business. FY25 income was inflated by a substantial one-off benefit tied to the Fund 9 transaction, which does not recur in FY26.

Beneath the headline figures, several operating metrics moved in the funder's favour. Omni Bridgeway recorded cash investment proceeds of A$350.5 million excluding secondary market activity, up 49% year on year, alongside A$564.4 million in newly added fair value. Employee expenses fell 16% as the group operated with a smaller headcount and reduced corporate overheads.

The company also pointed to record new commitments of A$712.2 million and a portfolio of more than 300 active litigation investments. Its late-July fourth-quarter update flagged an A$407.8 million pipeline spanning 43 exclusive term sheets.

Balance sheet measures were mixed. Net assets per share slipped to A$2.96 from A$2.99 a year earlier, while net tangible assets per share improved to A$2.08 from A$1.94.

The result caps a difficult stretch for the ASX-listed funder, whose shares have declined roughly 10% over the past 12 months against a rising benchmark index.

A commentary piece argues that the momentum behind third-party litigation funding disclosure laws has come from broad business coalitions rather than any single industry, pointing to Ohio as the template other states are now following.

As reported by AMAC, the article traces a run of state legislation beginning with Georgia's Courts Access and Consumer Protection Act, which requires outside financiers to register with state regulators, bars them from influencing litigation strategy and prohibits foreign funding. Arizona, Colorado, Kansas, Montana and Oklahoma each enacted their own versions, with Ohio and North Carolina subsequently added to the list.

Ohio State Representative Meredith Craig, a co-sponsor of House Bill 105, told the author that the coalition behind the measure mattered more than anything else. "We ultimately had every major business group supporting the legislation, from the Ohio Farm Bureau to the Ohio State Medical Association," she said. "That broad coalition showed this wasn't about helping one particular industry; it was about protecting Ohioans and the integrity of our courts." On the bill's bipartisan path, she added that members on both sides "agreed that it was time to defend our constituents and our businesses."

The piece frames the federal picture as moving in parallel, citing the Litigation Funding Transparency Act of 2026 introduced in February by Senator Chuck Grassley and co-sponsors, which would require disclosure of funding in federal class actions and multidistrict litigation, alongside a joint filing by the Institute for Legal Reform and Lawyers for Civil Justice seeking amendment of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure to create a uniform national disclosure standard.

Writing from the perspective of the Washington Health Innovation Council, the author focuses on medical device and biopharmaceutical companies, arguing that plaintiff recruitment advertising invoking the FDA name and logo can imply regulatory action that has not occurred, and that resources diverted to funded litigation lengthen development timelines.

A U.S. Patent and Trademark Office proposal to require third-party requesters for ex parte reexamination to name all real parties in interest has drawn a sharply divided response, with the dispute turning on the same transparency questions that animate the broader litigation funding disclosure debate.

As reported by IPWatchdog, 26 comments were filed before the period closed on 21 August, submitted by 17 organisations and eight individuals. The July rulemaking notice proposed that requests identify the requester and any other real parties in interest, with statements kept confidential on request, so the Office can assess whether statutory estoppel provisions bar a filing. The USPTO said it has received a significant number of reexamination requests aimed at patents already challenged in inter partes or post-grant review.

Eight of the 17 organisational comments opposed the rule outright. Supporters included Adeia, Nokia, Dolby Laboratories and the Council for Innovation Promotion. Adeia said it received ten anonymous requests between October 2025 and April 2026 after more than a decade without any, and had to defend its patents without knowing whether the requester was a licensee, competitor, affiliate of an estopped party or a foreign-backed organisation.

Dolby went further, arguing that a requester's own identification may be insufficient and proposing that requesters answer factual questions about their business model, member or subscriber funding, and the source of funds used for the challenge. Nokia recommended additional guidance covering indemnification obligations, industry consortia and third-party funding.

Opponents including the Business Software Alliance, Unified Patents and the PTAB Bar Association argued the Office has produced little evidence that estopped parties are exploiting anonymous reexamination, and warned that importing a fact-intensive real party in interest inquiry into an examiner-driven proceeding without discovery would generate satellite disputes and deter legitimate filings.

Ireland's centuries-old prohibition on third-party funding has become the practical barrier to collective redress claims against the technology companies that base their European operations there, with only one class action filed in the country in the five years since the EU opened the door to them.

As reported by POLITICO, Ireland is the only EU member state that bars a funder from financing litigation unless it has a direct or legitimate interest in the case. The restriction stems from the medieval doctrines of maintenance and champerty, written into Irish law in 1634 and still in force. England abolished both offences in 1967; Ireland's courts have continued to uphold the ban, with narrow exceptions such as charitable donations made without expectation of a share of any award.

The prohibition collides directly with the EU's 2020 Representative Actions Directive, which permits only non-profit qualified entities to bring class actions. Those organisations typically depend on outside capital to fund proceedings against well-resourced defendants. Five non-profits are registered in Ireland to bring such claims, but only one case has been lodged — the Irish Council for Civil Liberties' challenge to Microsoft's online advertising system, financed from the organisation's general budget.

Johnny Ryan, who directs the ICCL's enforcement unit, said complex litigation in Ireland costs at least €1 million at first instance and that the organisation "cannot take multiple cases unless the State allows us to raise the necessary funds." He described the combination of the EU's non-profit requirement and Ireland's funding ban as a "fatal contradiction" for consumers seeking compensation.

Ireland's Law Reform Commission is due to publish a report later this year on whether the rules should change, though Justice Minister Jim O'Callaghan has said he is "very hesitant" about permitting third-party funding. The European Commission said it is assessing implementation of the directive and that member states banning funding must ensure costs do not obstruct qualified entities.

Administrators to collapsed litigation funder Woodville Consultants Limited are investigating allegations that the company used money raised from new investors to pay promised returns to earlier ones, and have told investors that no reliable estimate can yet be placed on the value of the company's litigation funding portfolio.

As reported by The Law Society Gazette, the disclosure comes in Kroll's third update to investors since the Pontypridd-based business entered administration on 16 July by order of the High Court. Woodville focused on funding car finance redress claims and is understood to have raised more than £390 million from investors through unregulated loan notes.

Kroll reported that the funding arrangements have proved "more complex than initially understood," with some involving multiple parties, intermediary structures, overlapping contractual documents and inconsistent records of how money moved and on what basis it might be recovered. The administrators have met two law firms and remain in dialogue with others as they assess next steps, while also weighing how the Financial Conduct Authority's own motor finance redress scheme — designed to bypass claims brought by lawyers — could affect the timing and value of any recoveries.

The report also removes a source of comfort for investors. Performance bonds issued by Ohio-based insurer Talisman, which the administrators reviewed, do not cover amounts Woodville owes to investors. Kroll noted that some investors "were led to believe these bonds were a full insurance protection for their capital."

Separately, the administrators are reviewing Kairos Litigation, a venture established earlier this year by Woodville directors Ann Marie Bell and Peter Legge that sought to raise money through a tokenised loan note programme, as well as allegations concerning the possible mis-selling of insurance guarantees and a crypto-investment opportunity offered shortly before the collapse. No conclusions have been reached, and the administrators say it remains too early to draw reliable conclusions about recoveries.

The Unified Patent Court has ordered a newly formed patent claimant to post €200,000 in security for costs after concluding that the entity was economically assetless because its patents, licences and future income had all been pledged to its litigation funder.

As reported by Mishcon de Reya, the Hamburg Local Division reached that finding in *Nixu v Infoblox* (UPC_CFI_360/2026). Nixu, a US-domiciled claimant, was incorporated in March 2025 and acquired the patent in suit weeks later. The court declined to treat US domicile as a ground for security in itself, holding that "a claimant's domicile in the US did not, in itself, justify security for costs" and noting that US courts recognise European judgments.

What did justify security was the claimant's financial structure. Under a Patent Security Agreement, all patents, licences and future income were pledged to the funder, and part of the purchase price remained unpaid. The court found Nixu was "basically assetless in an economical sense" and dependent on discretionary support from its funder.

The same update reports a second security decision. In *La Siddhi v Athena Pharmaceutiques* (UPC_CoA_48/2026), the Court of Appeal upheld a €75,000 order against an SME claimant, confirming that "a party's SME status does not, by itself, exempt that party from the obligation to provide security for costs." The court distinguished fee reductions and cost ceilings available to SMEs from the security regime under Article 69(4) UPCA and Rule 158, which contains no SME carve-out. Security was set at roughly 60% of the applicable €112,000 recoverable costs ceiling.

Together the decisions suggest the UPC will look through corporate form to the funding arrangement itself when assessing whether a claimant can meet an adverse costs award.

Insurance rating agency Demotech has called for a structural change to the way property and casualty insurers report loss costs, arguing that the current composite format masks the effect of technology-driven claim generation that is sometimes financed by third-party litigation funders.

As reported by PR Newswire, Joseph L. Petrelli, president and co-founder of Demotech, said the firm's 2022 review of failed carriers pointed to litigation as the decisive factor. "In 2022, our postmortem of failed carriers identified new, annual litigation as the proximate cause of what destroyed them," Petrelli said.

The argument turns on an assumption built into loss cost reporting decades ago. Petrelli noted that until the mid-1980s advisory organisations published rates and premiums for insurers to adopt or deviate from, and that "an implicit assumption underlying the original loss cost format was that an equilibrium existed in the relative claim frequency between claims reported and settled with policyholders, and claims litigated and negotiated with plaintiff firms."

Demotech's position is that the equilibrium no longer holds. Its research concluded that industrial-scale increases in litigated claims were achieved through technology, online marketing and advertising, "sometimes financed through third-party litigation funding." Petrelli also pointed to alternative business structures, managed services organisations and what he described as other mutations in the legal profession that "may circumvent the disclosure of third-party litigation funding."

The proposed remedy is to trifurcate loss cost data, disaggregating a single composite figure into claims closed without payment, litigated claims and non-litigated claims, each weighted by its own frequency. Demotech contends that the added granularity would allow insurers and regulators to price the litigated portion of a book directly rather than absorbing it into a blended average.