The European Commission has stepped back from plans to impose EU‑wide regulation on third‑party litigation funding. At the closing of its “Justice for Growth” forum this week, Commissioner Michael McGrath bluntly stated that stakeholders reported “no need to regulate third‑party litigation funding at EU level”. Instead, the Commission will shift focus toward monitoring how the Representative Actions Directive (RAD) is being implemented across member states.

An article in Law 360 notes that the decision comes after a consultative process and stakeholder feedback via the Commission’s high‑level forum, which included representatives from business, consumer interest groups, and member‑state institutions.

Industry reaction was swift and positive. The International Legal Finance Association (ILFA) welcomed the announcement, noting that potential new regulation had created “considerable uncertainty for the sector.” ILFA expressed relief that the “talk of the need for new regulation … appears to be closed.”

Nevertheless, the decision comes at a complex moment. Earlier this year, the Commission published a detailed study on mapping third‑party litigation funding in the European Union, which had outlined three options for regulatory intervention: no regulation, light‑touch regulation, or full regulation. While the choice of “no new legislation” appears to align with the industry’s preference, the heightened scrutiny of the RAD’s implementation could signal more targeted oversight of how funders participate in consumer collective redress actions.

Implications for the legal funding industry: With the Commission refraining from new legislation, funders operating across the EU now have greater regulatory clarity, at least for the near term. But the decision also places the spotlight on national implementation of the RAD and raises questions about whether member states might adopt their own regulatory responses instead.

In a provocative new white paper, WilmerHale attorneys argue that venture capital–style strategies applied to patent litigation funding are fueling a wave of meritless lawsuits and stifling innovation in the U.S. tech economy.

An article in JD Supra outlines the firm's concerns about how litigation funders increasingly adopt a venture capital mindset when backing large portfolios of patent suits with the expectation that one or two major wins will offset the losses.

The paper contends that this model encourages the pursuit of weak or overbroad claims by non-practicing entities (NPEs), often through shell companies that obscure the funders' identities and incentives. In one example cited, a single defendant was forced to defend against dozens of claims, most of which were later dropped or invalidated, resulting in significant financial and operational burdens.

The authors also raise national security concerns, pointing to the lack of transparency around foreign investors that may leverage U.S. litigation as a strategic tool. In response, WilmerHale recommends mandating up-front disclosure of litigation funders, expanding fee-shifting mechanisms under laws such as 35 U.S.C. § 285, and amending the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure to improve accountability.

These calls for reform arrive at a moment of increased scrutiny on third-party litigation finance, particularly in the intellectual property space. With transparency and disclosure at the center of WilmerHale’s proposed solutions, the paper adds to a growing chorus of voices calling for more regulatory oversight in the litigation finance ecosystem.

A new report projects that the global litigation-funding investment market will reach approximately USD 53.6 billion by 2032, growing at a compound annual growth rate (CAGR) of about 13.84 percent. This robust growth forecast is driven by increasing demand for third-party financing in commercial litigation, arbitration, and high-stakes legal disputes. Investors are seeking exposure to legal-asset strategies as an uncorrelated return stream, while funders are scaling up to handle more complex, higher-value outcomes.

According to the article in Yahoo News, the market’s expansion is fueled by several structural shifts: more claimants are accessing capital through non-traditional financing models, law firms are leaning more on outside capital to manage cost and risk, and funders are expanding their product offerings beyond single-case funding. While the base market size was not specified in the summary, earlier industry data suggests significant growth from previous levels, with the current projection indicating a several-fold increase.

Still, the path forward is not without challenges. Macroeconomic factors, regulatory ambiguity, and constraints within the legal services ecosystem could affect the pace and scale of growth. Funders will need to maintain disciplined underwriting standards and carefully manage portfolio risks—especially as the sector becomes increasingly mainstream and competitive.

For the legal funding industry, this forecast reinforces the asset class's ongoing maturation. It signals a shift toward greater institutionalization and scale, with potential implications for pricing, transparency, and regulatory scrutiny. Whether funders can balance growth with rigor will be central to the market’s trajectory over the coming decade.

The American Property Casualty Insurance Association (APCIA) is renewing its call for Congress to advance two pieces of legislation aimed at increasing transparency in third-party litigation funding (TPLF). According to a recent article in Insurance Journal, APCIA is backing the Litigation Transparency Act of 2025 (H.R. 1109) and the Protecting Our Courts from Foreign Manipulation Act of 2025 (H.R. 2675) as key reforms for federal civil litigation.

An article in Insurance Journal reports that the House Judiciary Committee is expected to mark up both bills, which would require disclosure of TPLF in federal cases, and in the case of H.R. 2675, bar foreign governments and sovereign-wealth funds from investing in U.S. litigation. APCIA’s senior vice president for federal government relations described the measures as bringing “needed transparency for one of the largest cost drivers of insurance premiums — third-party litigation funding.”

In support of its advocacy, APCIA cited research from the consulting firm The Perryman Group, which estimated that excess tort costs in the U.S. amount to $368 billion annually — with each household absorbing roughly $2,437 in additional costs per year across items such as home and auto insurance and prescriptions.

While tax reform efforts once included proposals targeting funder profits, budget-rule constraints prevented those from advancing.

Burford Capital and Solomonic explore how seasoned funders and advisers can bring precision to the settlement table in high‑stakes disputes.

An article on Burford’s website states that the joint webinar, hosted by James MacKinnon (Burford) and Edward Bird (Solomonic), featured experts from Herbert  Smith  Freehills  Kramer, Pallas  Partners and Dectech to discuss how analytics can reshape settlement strategy. The piece highlights that large‑value disputes often take far longer and face steeper odds of success — not because high‑value claims are inherently weaker, but because risk‑seeking behaviour tends to dominate when the stakes rise.

Burford explains its method of translating a multi‑headed claim into a “weighted average damages outcome,” then discounting for trial risk, appellate risk, enforcement risk and cost of capital to arrive at a present‑day valuation. In one example, a claim with a theoretical maximum of US$500 million was valued at just under US$76 million after risk‑adjustment — meaning a settlement at or above that number would objectively represent success given the circumstances.

The article also reflects on the evolving role of AI and analytics. While data models are improving, Burford cautions that predictive systems remain dependent on data quality and expert inputs — underscoring that modelling alone is not a substitute for judgment and experience.

A new legislative push to increase transparency in third-party litigation funding (TPLF) has ignited concern over the potential erosion of individual privacy rights, especially for plaintiffs involved in sensitive litigation. While the bill aims to shed light on opaque funding arrangements, critics warn that it could open the door to broad and unnecessary disclosures of personal data.

An article in The Hill notes that among the more controversial aspects of the proposed bill is its requirement that plaintiffs and their attorneys disclose the details of any litigation funding agreements. These disclosures could go far beyond identifying funders, potentially revealing case-specific facts, medical or financial histories, and other personally identifiable information. There is no clear guidance on how such disclosures would be protected, raising the specter of public filings that expose vulnerable claimants to undue scrutiny or retaliation.

The breadth of the bill has drawn particular criticism. While aimed at foreign or undisclosed financial backers, its language is sweeping enough to encompass nearly any financial relationship, including arrangements with U.S.-based funders operating under existing regulatory frameworks. Legal observers worry that plaintiffs—especially those with lower means—may be discouraged from pursuing meritorious claims due to the fear of invasive data exposure.

Privacy advocates argue that without significant revisions, the bill risks creating a litigation environment in which strategic intelligence gathering by adversaries, funder interference, and reputational harms become routine. Several industry experts are calling for narrowly tailored disclosures limited to material funding terms, coupled with robust confidentiality protections and strict limits on public access.

In a notable ruling, the High Court has directed that a £340 million group action against Uber London Ltd will be subject to costs budgeting, despite the claim’s substantial size. The decision was handed down in the case of White & Ors v Uber London Ltd & Ors, where the total value of the claim far exceeds the £10 million threshold above which costs budgeting is typically not required under the Civil Procedure Rules.

According to Law Gazette, Mrs Justice O’Farrell chose to exercise judicial discretion to apply the budgeting regime. Her decision marks a significant moment for large-scale group litigation in England and Wales, underscoring the court’s growing interest in ensuring proportionality and transparency of legal costs—even in high-value cases.

An article in the Law Society Gazette reports that the ruling means the parties must now submit detailed estimates of incurred and anticipated legal costs, which will be reviewed and approved by the court. This move imposes a degree of cost control typically absent from group claims of this scale and signals a potential shift in how such cases are managed procedurally.

The decision carries important implications for the litigation funding industry. Funders underwriting group claims can no longer assume exemption from cost control measures based on claim size alone. The presence of court-approved cost budgets may impact the funders’ risk analysis and return expectations, potentially reshaping deal terms in high-value group actions. This development could prompt more cautious engagement from funders and a closer examination of litigation strategy in similar collective proceedings moving forward.