The U.S. litigation finance sector may soon face a substantial tax hike under a proposal folded into the latest version of Senate Republicans’ tax and healthcare legislation. The provision, championed by Senator Thom Tillis (R-NC), introduces a 41% levy on profits from litigation finance investments—a move projected to raise $3.5 billion over a decade.

An article in Bloomberg Law details how the measure was added to President Trump’s budget bill (H.R. 1) and could significantly deter investor interest in the $15.2 billion industry. Investors, who back lawsuits in exchange for a cut of potential settlements or verdicts, value litigation finance for its uncorrelated returns. But critics, including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, argue the practice inflates settlement values and prolongs litigation timelines.

The International Legal Finance Association (ILFA), the industry’s leading trade body, is actively opposing the Tillis proposal. ILFA argues that the measure would stifle access to justice by disincentivizing critical funding for claimants unable to afford litigation. The tax plan, while currently included in the bill, is far from finalized: Senate negotiations remain ongoing, and any final version must still be reconciled with the House’s earlier passage.

What makes the Tillis approach noteworthy is its departure from previous regulatory efforts focused on disclosure requirements. Instead, it leverages the tax code to curb litigation funding indirectly—prompting alarm across the industry. According to attendees at a recent litigation finance conference in New York, the proposal has already triggered coordinated responses among major funders, including efforts to boost ILFA membership and advocacy.

The proposed tax underscores a renewed push to rein in litigation finance via unconventional channels. As political winds shift, funders may need to rethink their strategies—not only to protect investor returns, but also to defend the sector’s role in enabling access to the courts.

Thousands of Belgian businesses may be eligible for compensation following revelations of a sweeping price-fixing scheme involving the country’s top private security providers. From 2008 to 2020, industry giants Securitas, G4S, and Seris colluded to inflate prices and carve up the market, depriving clients of competitive rates. The Belgian Competition Authority confirmed the scheme in July 2024, levying a landmark €47 million fine and acknowledging widespread harm to companies and institutions relying on security services.

An article in LitFin outlines how the litigation funder is spearheading a class action to secure damages for affected parties. LitFin estimates total damages could exceed €800 million, with any organization that contracted private security during the cartel period—whether for routine guarding or specialized services like airport security—potentially eligible to join the claim.

LitFin’s approach eliminates financial barriers by covering all legal and procedural costs in exchange for a share of any recovery. With 21 competition class actions already underway across the EU, the firm brings established expertise to this ambitious claim.

A brewing legal rift in one of the UK’s largest consumer class actions has escalated, as litigation funder Innsworth Capital seeks judicial review of the £200m Mastercard settlement approved by the Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT). Innsworth, which financed the long-running Merricks v Mastercard case, is contesting the tribunal’s distribution structure, claiming it unjustly limits the funder’s return to less than half its investment, while allocating over £30m to a third-party charity.

An article in the Global Legal Post reports that Innsworth’s challenge centers on the May ruling, which capped its return at £22.8m—just 0.5× its £45.6m outlay—while setting aside the remaining balance of a £54.4m discretionary fund for either top-up class member payments or donation to the Access to Justice Foundation (ATJF). Innsworth alleges the tribunal made legal and procedural missteps, including misapplying Australian case law and failing to account for the commercial risk it bore in a case once valued at £14bn.

The funder argues that a return of 1.5× was both contractually contemplated and supported by precedent, and that the tribunal denied it a fair chance to respond to the proposed settlement mechanics. Its filing calls attention to what it deems an “arbitrary and irrational” allocation that favors a charity over the party that funded the claim’s pursuit.

The timing of Innsworth’s action is notable, following the Civil Justice Council’s June 3 report urging statutory regulation of funders and a legislative fix to PACCAR. The outcome of this judicial review could influence how courts and legislators assess funder profits—and reshape expectations around post-settlement fund allocations in collective redress cases.

A shadowy new television ad has thrown fresh fuel on the fire surrounding third-party litigation funding, signaling a sharp escalation in efforts to reshape the industry’s tax treatment. The 60-second spot, airing nationally, takes aim at litigation financiers and the plaintiffs’ bar, aligning with a Republican-backed push to impose a steep 41% tax on litigation finance profits through an upcoming federal appropriations bill.

According to Bloomberg Law, the ad features dramatic visuals and pointed messaging designed to raise public concern about the role and influence of litigation funders in the civil justice system. While the ad does not disclose its sponsor, its timing and tone suggest it is part of a coordinated campaign to build momentum behind proposed tax reforms that would treat funder profits as ordinary income rather than capital gains.

At the heart of the policy debate is whether litigation funders should continue to benefit from preferential tax rates typically reserved for long-term investment income. Proponents of the tax hike argue that funders are not passive investors but active participants in the legal process who should face a higher tax burden. Critics, meanwhile, warn that the proposal would discourage funding for meritorious claims and restrict access to justice, especially in costly litigation where plaintiffs cannot afford to proceed without external financing.

The ad spot represents a new front in the political battle over litigation finance, which has faced increasing scrutiny from lawmakers, regulators, and industry opponents. It follows recent moves by groups like the American Property Casualty Insurance Association, which have endorsed similar tax reforms aimed at reining in the sector.

The American Property Casualty Insurance Association (APCIA) has thrown its support behind the “Tackling Predatory Litigation Funding Act,” a proposed bill aimed at increasing tax and regulatory scrutiny of third-party litigation funders. APCIA is advocating for the legislation’s inclusion in the federal reconciliation package, underscoring the insurance industry’s mounting concern over the financial and legal impact of third-party litigation funding (TPLF).

An article in Insurance Business Magazine reports that the APCIA is backing the measure as part of its broader efforts to rein in what it views as predatory funding practices. The association argues that TPLF arrangements can distort the legal process by incentivizing unnecessary litigation, driving up settlement costs, and fostering conflicts of interest between funders and claimants.

The proposed legislation would require litigation funders to pay taxes on returns previously treated as capital gains, thereby classifying their profits more akin to business income. This shift could significantly affect the financial calculus for funders, particularly those operating in high-volume, high-return sectors of mass tort and class action litigation.

The APCIA’s stance aligns with a broader pattern of resistance from the insurance industry, which has increasingly blamed litigation funding for contributing to “social inflation”—the rising costs of claims due to expanded legal theories and larger jury awards. With the insurance lobby stepping up its pressure, this bill could serve as a litmus test for how the federal government chooses to address the growing influence of litigation finance.

If passed, the legislation could reshape the risk-reward profile for funders and usher in a new era of compliance obligations. The legal funding industry will be watching closely to see whether this signals the start of a more aggressive regulatory push from Washington.

A landmark collective action against Google has cleared a key legal hurdle in the UK, with the Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT) certifying a £1.04 billion lawsuit brought on behalf of thousands of UK app developers.

The class action, spearheaded by Strathclyde University competition law professor Barry Rodger and backed by litigation funder Bench Walk Advisors, accuses Google of abusing its dominant position by imposing excessive commissions on app sales through its Play Store.

The case filing outlines that the CAT has issued a collective proceedings order, allowing the case to move to trial. The claim targets exorbitant commissions, alleging these charges unfairly burden UK app developers—many of them small- and medium-sized enterprises—by effectively locking them into the Play Store ecosystem through restrictive contractual and technical practices.

The case adds to mounting regulatory and legal scrutiny of Google’s Play Store practices worldwide. The European Commission recently issued preliminary findings under the Digital Markets Act, the UK’s CMA is assessing Google’s “Strategic Market Status,” and U.S. courts have already found the tech giant in breach of antitrust laws. The timing of the CAT’s ruling puts further pressure on Google, particularly as similar legal actions, including a new suit by Korean developers, continue to emerge globally.