News and analysis dedicated to the consumer legal funding sector including mass torts, regulatory issues, case developments, funding activities, and more.

Kansas has become the latest state to adopt a regulatory framework for consumer legal funding, with Governor Laura Kelly signing the Transparency in Consumer Legal Funding Act into law. The measure passed with unanimous bipartisan support in both chambers of the Kansas legislature and establishes baseline standards for how consumer legal funding companies operate in the state.

According to EIN Presswire, the new law affirms that consumer legal funding is not a loan and codifies several consumer protections. Those include a 10-day cancellation window allowing consumers to rescind agreements without penalty, a non-recourse structure ensuring consumers owe nothing if their case is unsuccessful, and a requirement that contracts be written in plain language. Funding companies must also provide full financial disclosure of funded amounts, fees, and maximum repayment schedules.

The statute additionally prohibits funders from influencing settlement decisions or the direction of litigation, preserving attorney independence and client control over case strategy. A referral fee ban eliminates kickbacks to attorneys or medical providers, addressing a long-standing concern among industry critics.

Eric Schuller, President of the Alliance for Responsible Consumer Legal Funding, called the legislation “a thoughtful, balanced framework that ensures consumers fully understand their agreements while preserving access to critical financial support during litigation.” The Kansas law adds to a growing patchwork of state-level consumer legal funding regulations and reflects continued momentum toward standardized disclosure requirements across the industry.

Pre-settlement funding provider Legal Bay has released an update on several major Catholic Church diocese bankruptcy settlements that are approaching the payout phase after years of delays in bankruptcy courts.

As reported by PR Newswire, the firm is tracking six diocesan bankruptcies where survivors of clergy abuse are awaiting resolution. Among the cases closest to distributing funds are the Diocese of Rockville Centre in New York with a $323 million court-approved settlement, the Diocese of Rochester with a $246–$256 million approved settlement, and the Diocese of Syracuse with a $176 million approved settlement.

Three additional cases remain pending court approval: the Diocese of Camden, New Jersey at $180 million, the Archdiocese of New Orleans at $230 million, and the Diocese of Buffalo with a proposed settlement ranging from $150 million to $274 million.

Legal Bay CEO Chris Janish said the company receives daily requests from clients seeking updates and “felt it was important to provide a clear snapshot of which cases are closest to reaching the payout stage.” The firm provides settlement funding and lawsuit loans to abuse survivors facing financial hardship during the prolonged litigation process.

The update underscores the continued role of pre-settlement funding in mass tort cases where claimants often wait years for bankruptcy proceedings to conclude before receiving compensation.

The following was contributed by Eric K. Schuller, President, The Alliance for Responsible Consumer Legal Funding (ARC).

“Equal justice under law is not merely a caption on the facade of the Supreme Court building, it is perhaps the most inspiring ideal of our society.”

— Lewis F. Powell Jr.

Few phrases better capture the promise of the American legal system than “Equal Justice Under Law.” Carved into the stone above the entrance to the United States Supreme Court, those words symbolize the belief that every person, regardless of wealth, status, or background, stands equal before the law.

But as Justice Lewis F. Powell Jr. observed, those words must represent more than an inscription on a building. They must be an operational principle, a reality experienced by everyday people who rely on the legal system to resolve disputes and obtain justice.

In practice, however, the ideal of equal justice often collides with an uncomfortable truth. Litigation takes time. Legal claims, particularly personal injury claims, can take months or years to resolve. During that time, the injured person frequently faces mounting financial pressure. Medical bills accumulate. Income may be lost due to the injury. Rent, utilities, and everyday expenses continue regardless of the progress of a legal case.

Meanwhile, the opposing party is often backed by a large insurance company or corporate defendant with deep financial resources and the ability to delay litigation for extended periods.

This imbalance creates a fundamental tension in the civil justice system. If one side can afford to wait and the other cannot, the outcome of a case may be influenced not by the merits of the claim, but by financial pressure. Consumer legal funding emerged as a practical solution to this problem.

At its core, consumer legal funding helps preserve the promise behind Justice Powell’s words by helping injured individuals maintain financial stability while their legal claims proceed.

The Economic Reality of Litigation

Civil litigation is rarely quick. Personal injury claims often require extensive investigation, medical treatment, negotiation with insurance companies, and in some cases trial preparation.

For injured plaintiffs, this process can be financially devastating. Many individuals involved in serious accidents cannot return to work immediately. Others face large medical expenses that accumulate before a settlement or judgment is reached.

Even individuals who previously had stable financial lives may suddenly find themselves struggling to pay for basic necessities.

Insurance companies and large defendants, by contrast, face no such pressures. Insurers are structured to manage litigation risk over long periods of time. They have legal departments, litigation budgets, and the ability to delay or extend negotiations.

This difference in financial endurance can shape the dynamics of settlement negotiations.

When an injured person faces the possibility of eviction, unpaid medical bills, or an inability to provide for their family, the pressure to settle quickly increases dramatically. The settlement decision may become less about fairness and more about survival.

This is where consumer legal funding plays a crucial role.

Consumer Legal Funding: Supporting Plaintiffs During Litigation

Consumer legal funding provides monies to plaintiffs with pending legal claims, typically personal injury cases. These funds are designed to help cover everyday living expenses while a case is ongoing.

Importantly, consumer legal funding is structured as non-recourse funding. Repayment occurs only if the plaintiff successfully resolves the case through settlement or judgment. If the case is unsuccessful, the consumer does not owe repayment.

This structure reflects the reality that the funding company is accepting risk tied to the outcome of the legal claim.

The purpose of the funding is not to finance litigation strategy or influence legal decisions. Rather, it helps injured individuals pay for basic necessities such as housing, food, transportation, and medical needs while the legal process unfolds.

In this way, consumer legal funding functions as a financial stabilizer during one of the most vulnerable periods in a plaintiff’s life.

Restoring Balance in Settlement Negotiations

The civil justice system assumes that parties negotiate settlements based on the merits of the case, the strength of the evidence, and the applicable law. In reality, financial pressure can significantly influence settlement behavior.

When plaintiffs face immediate financial hardship, they may feel compelled to accept settlements that do not fully reflect the value of their claims.

Insurance companies understand this dynamic. The longer a case continues, the greater the financial strain on many injured plaintiffs.

Consumer legal funding helps address this imbalance by giving plaintiffs the ability to withstand financial pressure during the litigation process.

By helping consumers remain financially stable, consumer legal funding allows settlement decisions to be based more on the actual merits of the case rather than immediate economic desperation.

In essence, it helps ensure that the legal process functions as intended.

The Role of Consumer Legal Funding in Access to Justice

Access to justice is often discussed in terms of legal representation. Ensuring that individuals have access to attorneys is unquestionably important. Contingency fee arrangements have long helped individuals pursue claims they might otherwise be unable to afford.

However, legal representation alone does not solve the financial challenges that plaintiffs face during litigation.

Even when attorneys represent clients on contingency, plaintiffs must still manage everyday living expenses while their cases proceed. Medical treatment may prevent them from working. Insurance disputes may delay compensation.

Without financial support, many plaintiffs find themselves in impossible situations.

Consumer legal funding addresses this gap. It supports the plaintiff personally, rather than the litigation itself.

This distinction is important. The funds are not intended to create lawsuits or encourage unnecessary litigation. Instead, they allow individuals with legitimate claims to endure the legal process required to resolve those claims fairly.

This support can make the difference between a plaintiff pursuing justice and abandoning a claim prematurely due to financial hardship.

Consumer Legal Funding and the American Tradition of Risk Sharing

The structure of consumer legal funding aligns with other widely accepted financial arrangements that involve risk sharing.

For example, insurance companies accept risk every day when they issue policies. If an insured event occurs, the insurer pays the claim. If it does not, the insurer retains the premiums.

Similarly, venture capital investors accept risk when they fund startup companies. If the company succeeds, the investor benefits. If it fails, the investor absorbs the loss.

Consumer legal funding operates on a similar principle. The funding company provides monies with the understanding that repayment depends on the success of the legal claim.

This risk-based structure distinguishes consumer legal funding from traditional lending, where repayment is required regardless of outcome.

The contingent nature of repayment reflects the uncertain nature of litigation itself.

Protecting the Integrity of the Civil Justice System

Critics sometimes argue that consumer legal funding interferes with litigation or encourages lawsuits. In reality, the opposite is often true.

Consumer legal funding does not determine whether a lawsuit is filed. That decision is made by the plaintiff and their attorney based on the merits of the case.

Funding companies review cases carefully before providing funds. The evaluation process often includes reviewing case documentation, attorney involvement, and the likelihood of a successful resolution.

This evaluation process means that funding companies generally support claims that already have legal merit and professional representation.

Rather than encouraging frivolous litigation, consumer legal funding tends to operate within the existing framework of legitimate claims.

Its primary impact is helping plaintiffs remain financially stable while the legal system runs its course.

Preserving the Meaning of “Equal Justice Under Law”

Justice Powell’s words remind us that the promise of the legal system extends beyond formal procedures. Equal justice requires more than access to a courtroom. It requires that individuals have a realistic ability to pursue their claims without being forced into premature settlement by financial hardship.

In many cases, the difference between a fair settlement and an inadequate one is time.

Insurance companies can afford time. Corporations can afford time.

Injured individuals often cannot.

Consumer legal funding helps bridge this gap. By providing financial support during the litigation process, it allows plaintiffs to remain engaged in their cases and pursue outcomes that reflect the true value of their claims.

This role aligns directly with the broader principles of fairness and equality embedded in the American legal tradition.

Funding Lives, Not Litigation

Consumer Legal Funding: Funding Lives, Not Litigation.

This phrase captures the essence of the product. The purpose of consumer legal funding is not to finance lawsuits or drive litigation strategy. It is to help real people navigate the difficult period between injury and resolution.

Behind every legal claim is a person whose life has been disrupted. There are families dealing with lost income, individuals recovering from serious injuries, and households struggling to meet everyday expenses.

Consumer legal funding recognizes these realities.

It provides a practical tool that helps injured consumers maintain stability while the legal system works toward a resolution.

Conclusion

Justice Lewis F. Powell Jr. reminded us that “Equal Justice Under Law” must represent more than an inscription on a courthouse wall. It must be a living principle that guides how the legal system operates.

For many injured plaintiffs, the greatest obstacle to justice is not the law itself, but the financial pressure that arises while a case is pending.

Consumer legal funding helps address this challenge. By providing financial stability during litigation, it allows plaintiffs to remain in the process long enough for their claims to be evaluated fairly.

In doing so, it supports the very principle Justice Powell described.

Equal justice cannot exist if only those who can afford to wait are able to pursue it. Consumer legal funding helps ensure that justice is determined by the facts and the law, not by who runs out of money first.

And in that sense, it plays a meaningful role in turning one of America’s most inspiring ideals into a practical reality.

The following was contributed by Eric K. Schuller, President, The Alliance for Responsible Consumer Legal Funding (ARC).

If policymakers want to understand consumer legal funding, they should start with insurance, not lending. At first glance, insurance and consumer legal funding may appear unrelated. One protects against risk. The other provides funds to plaintiffs in pending lawsuits to help pay for their day-to-day expenses. But structurally, they share a defining characteristic: risk is assumed by the capital provider, not imposed on the consumer. That single feature separates consumer legal funding from loans and aligns it more closely with underwriting.

Public policy depends on accurate classification. When a product is mischaracterized, regulation can miss its mark. Consumer legal funding is frequently labeled a “loan,” yet its mechanics contradict that description. A loan creates a guaranteed repayment obligation. Consumer legal funding does not. To regulate wisely, lawmakers must understand that distinction.

Insurance is built on underwriting risk. An insurance company evaluates probabilities. It examines health risks, property risks, liability exposure, accident frequency. It prices policies accordingly. The insurer does not lend money to the policyholder. Instead, it assumes risk in exchange for compensation. If the insured event occurs, the insurer pays. If the event does not occur, the insurer retains the premium. In either case, the insurer’s business model depends on accepting uncertainty. Insurance is not debt. It is risk transfer.

Now consider consumer legal funding. A funding company evaluates a legal claim. It assesses liability, damages, collectability, procedural posture, and likely duration. It underwrites the case. Instead of collecting premiums, it provides monies to the plaintiff. Its return depends entirely on a defined event: recovery in the lawsuit. If recovery occurs, the provider receives its agreed return from the proceeds. If recovery does not occur, the provider receives nothing. The funding company has effectively underwritten litigation risk. That is not lending. That is risk assumption.

The central question in distinguishing loans from contingent capital is simple: Who bears the risk of failure? In a loan, the borrower bears the risk. Repayment is mandatory regardless of outcome. In insurance, the insurer bears the risk. Payment depends on whether a covered event occurs. In consumer legal funding, the funding company bears the risk. Repayment depends on whether the case succeeds. If a plaintiff loses their case, they owe nothing. There is no collection action, no wage garnishment, no deficiency balance. The capital provider absorbs the loss. That structure is fundamentally inconsistent with debt.

To see the contrast clearly, consider the defining characteristics of a traditional loan: an unconditional obligation to repay, repayment regardless of performance or outcome, interest accrual over time, recourse against income or assets, and credit-based underwriting. If you borrow money to open a business and the business fails, you still owe the bank. If you lose your job after taking out a personal loan, you still owe the lender. If you use a credit card and experience hardship, the balance remains. Debt survives failure. Consumer legal funding does not. If there is no recovery in the legal claim, there is no repayment obligation. That single fact removes the defining feature of a loan.

Insurance companies price risk across portfolios. Some claims will generate losses. Others will generate gains. Sustainability depends on aggregate performance. Consumer legal funding companies operate similarly. Some cases succeed. Others fail. Pricing reflects probability of recovery, expected timeline, and litigation risk. Like insurers, funding providers must absorb unsuccessful outcomes as part of their business model. If policymakers were to impose lending-style interest caps on insurance premiums, the insurance market would collapse. Premiums are not structured like loan interest because repayment is not guaranteed. Similarly, consumer legal funding cannot be evaluated as if repayment were certain. The risk of total loss is real. When regulation ignores that risk allocation, it misunderstands the economics.

Labeling consumer legal funding as a loan may appear harmless, but it has significant policy consequences. Lending regulations are built around products where repayment is guaranteed and borrowers bear default risk. Those regulations assume predictable interest accrual and enforceable repayment obligations. Consumer legal funding lacks those features. If policymakers apply lending frameworks to non-recourse, outcome-dependent arrangements, they risk imposing regulatory structures that do not fit the product, distorting pricing models built around risk of total loss, reducing availability of funding for injured consumers, and eliminating a non-recourse option that differs fundamentally from debt. Regulation should reflect economic reality, not rhetorical convenience.

For injured plaintiffs, litigation is rarely quick. Cases may take months or years to resolve. During that time, medical bills accumulate. Rent is due. Utilities must be paid. Families rely on a steady income that may no longer exist. Traditional loans require fixed repayment regardless of outcome. Insurance does not. Consumer legal funding does not. That distinction explains why some consumers choose it. They are not borrowing against wages or income. They are accessing funds tied to a potential asset — their legal claim. If that asset produces value, repayment occurs from that value. If it does not, there is no personal debt. That is not debt stacking. It is risk sharing.

The core issue is risk transfer. Debt transfers risk to the borrower. Insurance transfers risk to the insurer. Consumer legal funding transfers litigation outcome risk to the funding company. The defining feature of a loan is an unconditional promise to repay. Without that promise, the structure changes entirely. If there is no recovery and the consumer owes nothing, the essential element of debt is absent. Policy debates should begin with that structural truth.

None of this suggests that consumer legal funding should operate without oversight. Transparent contracts, disclosure requirements, and consumer protections are appropriate in any financial arrangement. But regulation must match mechanics. Insurance is regulated as insurance because it is risk underwriting. Debt is regulated as lending because repayment is guaranteed. Consumer legal funding is non-recourse and outcome-dependent. It should be evaluated through that lens. When lawmakers start from the wrong definition, unintended consequences follow.

Consumer legal funding is non-recourse, payable only from legal proceeds, transfers outcome risk to the capital provider, and creates no unconditional repayment obligation. It shares structural similarities with insurance underwriting and other contingent compensation arrangements where payment depends on performance. The defining feature of a loan is guaranteed repayment. Consumer legal funding has no such guarantee. Before regulating it as debt, policymakers should ask a simple question: If the case fails and the consumer owes nothing, where is the loan? Sound public policy begins with structural accuracy.

Legal-Bay has highlighted an $8.5 million jury verdict against Uber in an Arizona bellwether trial arising from allegations of sexual assault by a rideshare driver. The verdict, delivered in a court proceeding serving as a bellwether for related claims, underscores potential jury reactions to evidence and theories that may recur across similar cases. For funders and insurers, an early result of this size in a bellwether setting can shape expectations for settlement ranges, defense costs, and the duration of case cycles.

An article in PR Newswire states that Legal-Bay, a legal funding firm, is drawing attention to the $8.5 million award and positioning capital to plaintiffs pursuing claims tied to rideshare assaults. The company notes that the Arizona outcome is a meaningful datapoint for pending litigation and that it stands ready to evaluate funding requests from claimants awaiting resolution.

According to the release, the firm continues to underwrite pre-settlement advances across personal injury and mass tort matters, including ride-hailing cases where plaintiffs may face lengthy timelines before payment. The statement frames the verdict as a signal that juries may credit evidence of inadequate safety practices, while acknowledging that individual results will vary by jurisdiction and fact pattern.

If additional bellwethers produce comparable results, parties could move toward structured settlement programs and more predictable valuation bands. Funders will likely revisit pricing, case selection, and exposure caps in rideshare assault portfolios. Appeals and post trial motions in Arizona bear watching as they may affect timing and recovery risk. Insurance programs for platform operators may also adjust assumptions.

Legal-Bay announced an expansion of its legal funding services, aiming to offer clients more flexible options for pre-settlement funding. The move reflects rising demand from plaintiffs who need interim cash while cases progress and highlights the competitive dynamics in consumer legal funding.

According to the company, the initiative is intended to broaden availability of non-recourse advances and to streamline decisioning so applicants can access funds more predictably during litigation. Although the funder did not disclose detailed terms, the emphasis on flexibility suggests adjustments to how advances are sized and timed relative to case milestones, as well as potential enhancements to intake and support. For claimants, the changes could translate into more tailored funding paths during a period of financial strain.

A press release in PR Newswire states that Legal-Bay is expanding its legal funding services to provide clients with more flexible options for pre-settlement funding, signaling a renewed focus on access and responsiveness. The release characterizes the update as a client-centric step and reiterates the company’s commitment to supporting plaintiffs seeking bridge financing while their matters are pending. It does not enumerate product features, timelines or pricing, but it frames the initiative as an effort to meet a wider range of circumstances and case timelines.

For the litigation finance industry, expansions like this reinforce steady demand among cash-constrained plaintiffs and continued product iteration by consumer funders. If flexibility becomes a wider theme, expect tighter competition on approval speed, disclosures and service quality, alongside ongoing attention to compliance in states evaluating consumer legal funding rules.

Consumer legal funding has increasingly become a focal point for legislative scrutiny, with some policymakers framing new regulations as necessary consumer protections. A recent commentary argues that one such proposal—imposing joint and several liability on consumer legal funding companies—may do more harm than good, ultimately restricting access to justice for the very consumers these laws are meant to protect.

At its core, the debate centers on whether funders should be held jointly and severally liable alongside plaintiffs for litigation outcomes or related conduct. Proponents of these measures suggest that attaching liability to funders would deter abusive practices and align incentives across the litigation ecosystem. Critics, however, warn that this approach misunderstands the role of consumer legal funding and risks destabilizing a market that many injured or financially vulnerable plaintiffs rely upon to pursue meritorious claims.

An article in National Law Review states that joint and several liability provisions would dramatically alter the risk profile for consumer legal funding companies, forcing them to assume exposure far beyond their contractual role as non-recourse financiers. The piece argues that such liability would likely lead to higher costs of capital, reduced availability of funding, or a wholesale exit of providers from certain jurisdictions. In turn, consumers who lack the means to sustain themselves financially during prolonged litigation could be left without viable alternatives, effectively pressuring them into premature or undervalued settlements.

The article also challenges the notion that consumer legal funding requires punitive regulation, pointing to existing disclosure requirements, contract oversight, and state-level consumer protection laws that already govern the industry. By layering on joint liability, legislators may unintentionally undermine these frameworks and introduce uncertainty that benefits defendants more than consumers. The author further notes that similar liability concepts are generally absent from other forms of non-recourse financing, raising questions about why legal funding is being singled out.

The following was contributed by Eric K. Schuller, President, The Alliance for Responsible Consumer Legal Funding (ARC).

The Real-World Consequences of Over-Regulation and Misclassification

State lawmakers across the country are increasingly focused on how to regulate third-party financial activity connected to litigation. That attention is appropriate and necessary. However, when Consumer Legal Funding (CLF) is misclassified as a loan, conflicted with commercial litigation finance, or subjected to regulatory structures designed for fundamentally different financial products, the consequences fall not on providers, but on consumers who need it the most.

Consumer Legal Funding, Funding Lives, Not Litigation, exists to help individuals with pending legal claims meet basic household needs while their cases move through the legal system. These consumers are often recovering from serious injuries, unable to work, and facing mounting financial pressure. When CLF disappears due to over-regulation or misclassification, those consumers do not suddenly become financially secure. Instead, they are pushed into worse, more dangerous alternatives, or forced into decisions that undermine both their legal rights and their long-term financial stability.

Who Uses Consumer Legal Funding and Why

Consumers who turn to CLF are not seeking to finance their litigation. They are seeking financial stability. On average, CLF transactions range between $3,000 and $5,000. These monies are used for rent, mortgage payments, utilities, groceries, childcare, transportation, and medical co-pay. In many cases, it is differences between maintaining housing or facing eviction, between keeping a car or losing the ability to get to medical appointments or work.

CLF is non-recourse. If the consumer does not recover in their legal claim, they owe nothing. That structure places all financial risk on the provider, not the consumer. It is precisely this risk allocation that distinguishes CLF from loans and traditional credit products, and it is why courts and legislatures in numerous states have recognized that CLF is not a loan.

When lawmakers impose loan-based frameworks on CLF, including usury caps, amortization requirements, or repayment obligations disconnected from case outcomes, the product becomes economically impossible to offer. The result is not a cheaper product. The result is no product at all.

The Immediate Impact of CLF Disappearing

When CLF exits a state market, the effects are immediate and measurable.

First, consumer access disappears. Providers cannot operate under regulatory structures that ignore the non-recourse nature of the product. Capital exits the market, and consumers lose an option that previously helped them remain financially afloat during litigation.

Second, consumers are forced into inferior alternatives. Without CLF, injured individuals frequently turn to credit cards, payday lenders, installment loans, or borrowing from friends and family. These options often carry guaranteed repayment obligations, compounding interest, collection risk, and damage to credit. Unlike CLF, these products do not adjust based on whether the consumer recovers anything in their legal claim.

Third, financial pressure forces premature settlements. When consumers cannot meet basic living expenses, they are more likely to accept early, undervalued settlements simply to survive. This undermines the fairness of the civil justice system and benefits defendants and insurers, not injured parties or the courts.

Misclassification Harms the Most Vulnerable Consumers

The consumers most harmed by the elimination of CLF are those with the fewest alternatives. These are individuals with limited savings, limited access to traditional credit, and limited ability to absorb income disruption following an injury.

Ironically, regulations intended to protect consumers often end up harming precisely the consumers they sought to help. When CLF is treated as a loan, the regulatory burden drives responsible providers out of the market while doing nothing to improve consumer outcomes. Consumers do not gain safer options. They lose transparent, regulated, non-recourse funding and are pushed toward products with higher risk and fewer protections.

This is not hypothetical. States that have enacted overly restrictive frameworks or applied inappropriate rate caps have seen providers exit, access shrink, and consumer choice vanish. The lesson is clear. When regulation ignores economic reality, consumers pay the price.

CLF Does Not Drive Litigation or Verdict Inflation

A common concern raised in policy debates is whether CLF encourages litigation, prolongs cases, or contributes to so-called nuclear verdicts. The evidence does not support these claims.

CLF is accessed after a legal claim already exists. It does not finance attorneys’ fees, court costs, or litigation strategy. Providers have no control over legal decisions, settlement timing, or trial outcomes. Their only interest is whether a consumer recovers at all.

Moreover, the small size of typical CLF transactions makes it implausible that they influence case strategy or verdict size. A $3,000 to $5,000 transaction used to pay rent or utilities does not drive multi-million-dollar litigation outcomes. Conflating CLF with commercial litigation finance obscures these realities and leads to policy mistakes.

A Better Path Forward for Policymakers

Legislators can protect consumers without eliminating CLF. States that have enacted thoughtful CLF statutes have focused on disclosure, transparency, contract clarity, and consumer choice, rather than imposing loan-based rate structures that do not fit a non-recourse product.

Effective regulation acknowledges three core principles. First, CLF is not a loan and should not be regulated as one. Second, consumers benefit from access to a regulated, transparent product rather than being pushed into worse alternatives. Third, clear rules provide stability for both consumers and providers.

When policymakers get this balance right, consumers retain access to a product that helps them weather one of the most difficult periods of their lives without distorting the justice system or creating unintended harm.

Conclusion

The issue confronting lawmakers is not whether Consumer Legal Funding should be subject to oversight, but whether existing and future frameworks accurately reflect how the product operates and whom it serves. When CLF is swept into regulatory regimes designed for loans or commercial litigation finance, the result is not improved consumer protection. It is the quiet elimination of a non-recourse option that many injured consumers rely on to remain financially stable while their legal claims are resolved.

Careful, informed policymaking requires recognizing that Consumer Legal Funding is distinct, limited in size, non-recourse, and consumer-facing. Regulation that acknowledges those characteristics preserves transparency and accountability without stripping consumers of choice or forcing them into riskier financial alternatives. When rules are tailored to economic reality rather than broad assumptions, consumers are better protected, markets remain stable, and the civil justice system functions as intended.

The Alliance for Responsible Consumer Legal Funding (ARC) applauds New York Governor Kathy Hochul for signing into law Assembly Bill 804C/Senate Bill 1104, a landmark measure establishing thoughtful regulation for Consumer Legal Funding in the Empire State.

Sponsored by Assemblymember William B. Magnarelli and Senator Jeremy Cooney, this legislation creates a clear framework that protects consumers while preserving access to a vital financial resource that helps individuals cover essential living expenses—such as rent, mortgage, and utilities, while their legal claims are pending.

“I am pleased that the Governor signed this important bill into law today.  It is the culmination of 8-years of hard work on this issue.  This law will provide a sound framework to regulate financing agreements and provide protections to consumers.  I want to thank the Alliance for Responsible Consumer Legal Funding and its President, Eric K. Schuller for working with me to get this bill over the finish line.  I would also like to thank and acknowledge my late colleague, Assemblyman Michael Simanowitz, who was the original sponsor of this legislation.”  — William B. Magnarelli, 129^th Assembly District 

For many New Yorkers, Consumer Legal Funding provides a critical financial lifeline while a legal claim is pending, often for months or years. Injured consumers frequently face lost income and mounting household expenses at the very moment they are least able to manage financial strain. Consumer Legal Funding allows individuals to cover essential living costs, such as rent, utilities, transportation, and groceries, without being forced into an early or unfair settlement simply to make ends meet.

Senator Jeremy Cooney stated: “Today marks a historic step forward in protecting everyday New Yorkers from opaque and often predatory litigation financing practices. For too long, vulnerable plaintiffs have been left in the dark about the true cost of third-party funding, only to see the majority of their hard-earned legal recovery eroded by fees and unclear terms. I’m proud to sponsor this bill that brings transparency, accountability, and basic consumer protections to this industry, ensuring New Yorkers can pursue justice without sacrificing financial security.”

Because Consumer Legal Funding is non-recourse, consumers repay funds only if they recover proceeds from their legal claim, if there is no recovery, they owe nothing. This structure protects consumers from taking on debt, preserves their financial stability, and ensures they retain full control over their legal decisions. By enacting this legislation, New York affirms that Consumer Legal Funding supports financial stability and access to justice.

“This law strikes the right balance between consumer protection and financial empowerment, by establishing clear rules of the road, New York ensures that consumers retain freedom of choice, transparency, and access to funds that help them meet their immediate needs during one of the most difficult times in their lives.” said Eric K. Schuller, President of the Alliance for Responsible Consumer Legal Funding (ARC). “We thank Governor Hochul for her leadership and Assemblymember Magnarelli and Senator Cooney for their commitment to fairness and consumer choice. This new law affirms that Consumer Legal Funding is about funding lives, not litigation.” 

Under the new law, Consumer Legal Funding is defined as a non-recourse transaction in which a company purchases a contingent right to receive proceeds from a consumer’s legal claim. The law contains several key consumer safeguards, including:

• Clear Contract Disclosures: All terms, charges, and cumulative repayment amounts must be plainly stated and initialed by the consumer.
• Right to Cancel: Consumers have ten business days to cancel a contract without penalty.
• Attorney Oversight: Attorneys must acknowledge reviewing mandatory disclosures and are prohibited from accepting referral fees or having a financial interest in funding companies.
• Prohibited Practices: Funding companies may not influence settlement decisions, mislead consumers through advertising, or refer clients to specific attorneys or medical providers.
• Registration and Reporting: All funding companies must register with the State of New York and file annual reports, and meet bonding and disclosure requirements.

The act takes effect 180 days after becoming law and marks another milestone in advancing consumer protection and responsible business practices across the nation.

About ARC

The Alliance for Responsible Consumer Legal Funding (ARC) is the national trade association representing companies that provide Consumer Legal Funding—non-recourse financial assistance that helps consumers meet everyday living expenses while their legal claims proceed. ARC advocates for policies that protect consumers and ensure access to fair, transparent, and responsible funding options.