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.

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

In today’s economy, far too many Americans are walking a financial tightrope. New data from the Bank of America Institute shows that 24 percent of U.S. households now spend more than 95 percent of their income on basic necessities such as rent, groceries, utilities and transportation. That number jumps to 29 percent among lower income households.

Even more surprising, this strain is not limited to those on the lower end of the income ladder. A recent report from Fortune found that 41 percent of workers earning between $300,000 and $500,000, and 40 percent of those earning more than $500,000, say they too are living paycheck to paycheck. Lifestyle costs, debt and high inflation have eroded financial resilience even at the upper end of the income scale.

When an unexpected injury occurs, these households do not simply experience inconvenience. They experience crisis. Income stops or drops. Medical bills rise. Transportation becomes a barrier. Childcare becomes more complicated. Daily life becomes harder and more expensive, just as a legal claim begins the long march through the justice system.

This is the reality facing millions of Americans. It is also why Consumer Legal Funding exists.

The Delay Between Injury and Justice Creates Hardship

After an accident, a consumer who has a valid legal claim. But that claim will take time to resolve. Insurance negotiations, medical assessments and legal reviews do not operate on the timeline of rent due on the first of the month. Consumers cannot tell the electric company to wait until their settlement arrives. They cannot tell the landlord that the case is moving slowly. Yet all of those bills continue to accumulate.

For people who already have no financial cushion, even a short interruption in income can be catastrophic. Families fall behind on rent. Utilities get disconnected. Cars fall into repossession. Groceries become unaffordable.

These pressures far too often push consumers into accepting low settlement offers simply to survive. That is not justice. That is coercion.

Consumer Legal Funding Helps Consumers Survive the Wait

Consumer Legal Funding provides consumers with access to a portion of the future proceeds of their legal claim. Those funds help pay for essential daily expenses, such as:

• Rent and utilities
• Groceries and basic household needs
• Car payments and repairs
• Childcare and family necessities
• Transportation to medical appointments

This support is not used to pay attorney fees or litigation expenses. It is used to keep food on the table and a roof over a family’s head. It is, quite literally, the difference between stability and crisis while consumers await a fair resolution.

Equally important, Consumer Legal Funding is non-recourse. If the consumer does not win or settle their case, they owe nothing. No debt is created. No financial penalty follows them. The risk is on the funding company, not the consumer.

In a financial landscape where payday loans, credit cards and title loans can trap people in cycles of debt, Consumer Legal Funding offers a safer alternative that respects their long term financial well being.

Leveling the Playing Field

Consumer Legal Funding gives consumers the ability to withstand delay tactics. It gives them the time they need for their attorney to negotiate properly. It allows the civil justice system to work on the merits of the case, not the desperation of the injured person.

In an economy where both low income and high-income earners are struggling to stay afloat, tools that protect fairness in the justice system have never been more important.

A Necessary Safety Net for a Fragile Economy

The numbers paint a clear picture. Whether someone earns $40,000 or $400,000, far too many Americans are living without a financial buffer. A single injury can create a domino effect that jeopardizes a family’s housing, transportation, health and financial future.

Consumer Legal Funding does not solve every challenge. But it solves one critical one: it keeps consumers stable during the long wait for justice. It prevents them from being forced into unfair settlements. And it protects them from predatory financial alternatives that create long term harm.

In short, it helps Americans in their moment of need.

Funding Lives, Not Litigation

Consumer Legal Funding exists for one purpose: to help people survive while their legal claim makes its way through the system. It allows injured consumers to focus on recovery, not crisis. It restores balance against powerful insurance companies. And it ensures fairness is not compromised because someone cannot afford to wait for what they are rightfully owed.

Consumer Legal Funding is about Funding Lives, Not Litigation. And in an economy where far too many Americans are living paycheck to paycheck, that mission has never been more essential.

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

This year’s Nobel Prize in Economics was awarded to Joel Mokyr, Philippe Aghion, and Peter Howitt for their groundbreaking work on how innovation fuels economic growth and human welfare. Their research, centered on endogenous growth and creative destruction, shows that societies advance when new ideas challenge old systems, replacing inefficiency with opportunity.

While their theories are often discussed in the context of technology or industrial progress, they also apply to financial and social innovations that empower people. One of the most quietly transformative examples is Consumer Legal Funding, a financial service that provides individuals with non-recourse funds while their legal claims are pending.

Viewed through the lens of these Nobel-winning theories, Consumer Legal Funding is far more than a niche product. It is an economic innovation that expands access, promotes fairness, and strengthens the very mechanisms that drive growth and human welfare.

1. Expanding Access to Justice: Empowering Consumers and Communities

Access to justice is both a moral and an economic imperative. When ordinary people cannot afford to pursue their legal rights because they cannot provide for their family, justice becomes a privilege for the wealthy, and the rule of law erodes. Consumer Legal Funding addresses this inequity directly by providing individuals with the funds they need to meet essential household expenses, rent, mortgage, groceries, utilities, childcare, while their cases make their way through the legal system.

Because these funds are non-recourse, consumers owe nothing if they do not win their case. That makes Consumer Legal Funding uniquely empowering: it provides stability and breathing room at the moment people need it most. In economic terms, this keeps families solvent, prevents forced settlements driven by financial desperation, and allows cases to be resolved based on fairness rather than necessity.

This democratization of access produces tangible economic benefits. Families stay in their homes, local businesses receive payments, and workers avoid the financial collapse that often accompanies serious injury or wrongful termination. In this way, Consumer Legal Funding strengthens both household balance sheets and community well-being, a microeconomic engine of stability and resilience.

2. Protecting Innovation and Small Business Resilience

The Nobel laureates emphasized that innovation flourishes when barriers to participation are lowered. The same principle applies to individuals and small businesses facing powerful opponents in legal disputes. Whether it is a local contractor owed payment, a delivery driver injured in an accident, or an inventor defending intellectual property, the ability to pursue justice can determine whether innovation thrives or collapses.

Consumer Legal Funding helps level this playing field. It gives consumers and small enterprises the financial capacity to sustain legitimate claims without surrendering early under financial pressure. By doing so, it safeguards the principles of accountability and fair dealing that encourage entrepreneurship and innovation.

Every successful resolution supported by Consumer Legal Funding reinforces market integrity: contracts are honored, negligence is deterred, and honest competition is rewarded. This is how progress occurs, when individuals and innovators have the means to defend their rights and contribute fully to economic life.

3. Fueling Creative Destruction: Redefining How Justice Is Financed

In economic terms, Consumer Legal Funding is itself an innovation that embodies creative destruction. For generations, access to justice was limited by the rigid structure of the legal system: lawyers and clients bore the full financial risk, and those without resources were often shut out entirely.

Consumer Legal Funding disrupts that outdated model. It introduces a private-market solution that operates independently of banks, insurers, or government assistance. By offering a new way for individuals to access funds tied to the potential outcome of their legal claim, it redefines the economics of fairness.

This shift mirrors other historic transformations, just as e-commerce reshaped retail or fintech expanded banking access, Consumer Legal Funding modernizes the intersection of law and finance. It replaces exclusivity with inclusion, dependency with empowerment, and uncertainty with choice. It is a vivid example of innovation that serves people first, not institutions.

4. Creating a New Financial Ecosystem: From Survival Tool to Economic Contributor

What began as a consumer support product has grown into a significant contributor to the broader economy. The Consumer Legal Funding industry now represents a direct economic driver, supporting thousands of jobs in finance, compliance, technology, and law.

“The Nobel laureates’ research ultimately centers on a profound idea: that human welfare grows when barriers to progress are removed and individuals are empowered to act. Consumer Legal Funding embodies that principle.”

Each transaction recirculates funds into the economy, paying landlords, medical providers, car repair shops, and countless other local businesses. In this way, Consumer Legal Funding acts as a stabilizer, smoothing the financial turbulence that can follow accidents, workplace injuries, or prolonged litigation.

Economists recognize that liquidity and timing matter. By bridging the gap between injury and recovery, between claim and resolution, Consumer Legal Funding enhances financial resilience and supports sustained consumer spending. This flow of capital at the household level contributes to macroeconomic stability and growth, precisely the kind of incremental innovation that Mokyr and Aghion identified as critical to human welfare.

5. Driving Institutional and Regulatory Innovation

Innovation does not occur in isolation; it prompts institutions to evolve. The rapid growth of Consumer Legal Funding has led policymakers, courts, and regulators to modernize legal and financial frameworks to reflect this new reality.

In states such as Utah, Georgia, Maine, Missouri, Ohio, Vermont and now California, legislatures have enacted laws that specifically recognize and regulate Consumer Legal Funding, ensuring transparency and consumer protection while preserving access. These frameworks establish clear rules, define the product as non-recourse, and distinguish it from loans or traditional litigation financing.

This legal clarity promotes responsible growth, protects consumers, and reinforces trust in the marketplace. It also represents exactly what Aghion and Howitt described: institutional adaptation as a driver of sustained innovation. As more jurisdictions follow suit, Consumer Legal Funding continues to model how private innovation and public policy can evolve together to serve the public good.

6. Consumer Legal Funding and the Economics of Human Welfare

The Nobel laureates’ research ultimately centers on a profound idea: that human welfare grows when barriers to progress are removed and individuals are empowered to act. Consumer Legal Funding embodies that principle.

By providing access to financial stability during legal uncertainty, it transforms moments of crisis into pathways toward justice and recovery. It strengthens families, reduces strain on public assistance systems, and promotes confidence in the fairness of the civil justice process.

At a macro level, the ripple effects are substantial. More equitable settlements mean greater accountability. Greater accountability deters harmful behavior. And when wrongdoing is reduced, the economy becomes more efficient and trustworthy — exactly the conditions required for sustained, inclusive growth.

7. A Call to Recognize Consumer Legal Funding as True Economic Innovation

Innovation is not defined solely by technology or machinery; it is measured by ideas that reshape systems and improve lives. Consumer Legal Funding achieves both. It is a financial innovation that serves social good, an economic tool that empowers individuals, and a policy model that encourages modern regulatory thinking.

The economists honored by this year’s Nobel Prize remind us that progress is built on the courage to rethink how systems work, and for whom they work. By that measure, Consumer Legal Funding deserves recognition not as a fringe practice, but as a quiet force of modern progress: Funding Lives, Not Litigation.

The Alliance for Responsible Consumer Legal Funding Applauds Governor Newsom for Signing AB 931, the California Consumer Legal Funding Act

The Alliance for Responsible Consumer Legal Funding (ARC) expressed its deep appreciation to Governor Gavin Newsom for signing Assembly Bill 931 — The California Consumer Legal Funding Act — into law. Authored by Assemblymember Ash Kalra (D–San Jose, 25th District), this landmark legislation establishes thoughtful and comprehensive regulation of Consumer Legal Funding in California—ensuring consumer protection, transparency, and access to financial stability while legal claims move through the judicial process.

The law, which takes effect January 1, 2026, provides consumers with much-needed financial support during the often lengthy resolution of their legal claims, helping them cover essential living expenses such as rent, mortgage payments, and utilities.

“This legislation represents a major step forward for California consumers,” said Eric Schuller, President of the Alliance for Responsible Consumer Legal Funding. “AB 931 strikes the right balance between protecting consumers and preserving access to a financial product that helps individuals stay afloat while they await justice. Consumer Legal Funding truly is about funding lives, not litigation.”
Key Consumer Protections Under AB 931

The California Consumer Legal Funding Act includes robust safeguards that prohibit funding companies from engaging in improper practices and mandate full transparency for consumers.

The Act Prohibits Consumer Legal Funding Companies from:

• Offering or colluding to provide funding as an inducement for a consumer to terminate their attorney and hire another.
• Colluding with or assisting an attorney in bringing fabricated or bad-faith claims.
• Paying or offering referral fees, commissions, or other forms of compensation to attorneys or law firms for consumer referrals.
• Accepting referral fees or other compensation from attorneys or law firms.
• Exercising any control or influence over the conduct or resolution of a legal claim.
• Referring consumers to specific attorneys or law firms (except via a bar association referral service).

The Act Requires Consumer Legal Funding Companies to:

• Provide clear, written contracts stating:
• The amount of funds provided to the consumer.
• A full itemization of any one-time charges.
• The maximum total amount remaining, including all fees and charges.
• A clear explanation of how and when charges accrue.
• A payment schedule showing all amounts due every 180 days, ensuring consumers understand their maximum financial obligation from the outset.
• Offer consumers a five-business-day right to cancel without penalty.
• Maintain no role in deciding whether, when, or for how much a legal claim is settled.

With AB 931, California joins a growing list of states that have enacted clear and fair regulation recognizing Consumer Legal Funding as a non-recourse, consumer-centered financial service—distinct from litigation financing and designed to help individuals meet their household needs while pursuing justice.

“We commend Assemblymember Kalra for his leadership and Governor Newsom for signing this important legislation,” said Schuller. “This act ensures that Californians who need temporary financial relief during their legal journey can do so safely, transparently, and responsibly.”

About the Alliance for Responsible Consumer Legal Funding (ARC)

The Alliance for Responsible Consumer Legal Funding (ARC) is a national association representing companies that provide Consumer Legal Funding, non-recourse financial assistance that helps consumers meet essential expenses while awaiting the resolution of a legal claim. ARC advocates for fair regulation, transparency, and consumer choice across the United States.

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

Across the country, in both state capitols and Washington, D.C., policymakers and courts are giving increasing attention to the question of “litigation financing” and whether disclosure requirements should apply. At the heart of this debate is a push for transparency, who is funding lawsuits, what contracts exist, and what parties are behind those agreements.

While the intent is understandable, the challenge lies in the lack of a consistent and precise definition of what “litigation financing” actually is. Too often, broad definitions sweep in products and services that were never intended to fall under that category, most notably Consumer Legal Funding. This misclassification has the potential to cause confusion in the law and, more importantly, harm consumers who rely on these funds to stay afloat financially while pursuing justice through the legal system.

As Aristotle observed, “The beginning of wisdom is the definition of terms.” Without careful definitions, good policy becomes impossible.

The Distinction Between Litigation Financing and Consumer Legal Funding

The difference between litigation financing and Consumer Legal Funding is both simple and significant.

Litigation financing, sometimes referred to as third-party litigation funding (TPLF), typically involves an outside party providing monies to attorneys or to plaintiffs’ firms to pay for the costs of bringing or defending lawsuits. These funds are used to pay legal fees, expert witnesses, discovery expenses, and other litigation-related costs. The funders, in turn, often seek a portion of the litigation’s proceeds if the case is successful. In short, this type of financing directly supports the litigation itself.

Consumer Legal Funding, on the other hand, serves an entirely different purpose. In these transactions, monies are provided directly to consumers, not attorneys, for personal use while their legal claim is pending. These funds are not used to pay legal fees or case expenses. Instead, consumers typically use them for necessities such as rent, mortgage payments, groceries, utilities, childcare, or car payments. Funding companies are not influencing the litigation but rather ensuring that individuals have the financial stability to see their case through to its conclusion without being forced into a premature settlement simply because they cannot afford to wait.

This is why treating Consumer Legal Funding as though it were litigation financing is both inaccurate and potentially harmful.

Legislative and Judicial Recognition of the Difference

Several states have already recognized and codified this critical distinction. States including Arizona, Colorado, Louisiana, and Kansas have examined disclosure requirements for litigation financing and have made it clear that Consumer Legal Funding is not subject to those laws. Their statutes expressly define litigation financing in a way that excludes consumer-focused products.

Courts have also weighed in. In Arizona, for example, the state’s rules of civil procedure expressly carve out Consumer Legal Funding, recognizing that these transactions are unrelated to litigation financing and should not be treated as such. Likewise, when the Texas Supreme Court considered proposed rules surrounding litigation financing, the Court ultimately declined to proceed. While no new rule was adopted, the process made clear that Consumer Legal Funding was not intended to be part of the conversation.

These examples demonstrate that policymakers and jurists, when carefully considering the issue, have consistently drawn a line between products that finance lawsuits and those that help consumers meet basic living expenses.

Why the Distinction Matters

The consequences of failing to make this distinction are not abstract, they are very real for consumers. If disclosure statutes or procedural rules are written too broadly, they risk sweeping in Consumer Legal Funding.

Disclosure requirements are aimed at uncovering potential conflicts of interest, undue influence over litigation strategy, or foreign investment in lawsuits. None of these concerns are relevant to Consumer Legal Funding, which provides personal financial support and, by statute in many states, explicitly forbids funders from controlling litigation decisions.

As Albert Einstein noted, “If you can’t explain it simply, you don’t understand it well enough.” When the difference between litigation financing and Consumer Legal Funding is explained simply, the distinction becomes obvious. One finances lawsuits, the other helps consumers survive.

A Clear Request to Policymakers

For these reasons, we respectfully urge legislators and courts, when drafting legislation or procedural rules regarding “litigation financing,” to clearly define the scope of what is being regulated. If the issue is the funding of litigation, then the measures should address the financing of litigation itself, not the consumer who is simply trying to pay everyday bills and keep a roof over their head while awaiting the resolution of a legal claim.

Clarity in definitions is not a minor issue; it is essential to ensure that the right problems are addressed with the right solutions. Broad, vague definitions risk collateral damage, undermining access to justice and harming the very individuals the legal system is meant to protect. By contrast, carefully tailored definitions ensure transparency in litigation financing while preserving critical financial tools for consumers.

Finally

The debate around litigation financing disclosure is an important one, but it must be approached with precision. Litigation financing and Consumer Legal Funding are two fundamentally different products that serve very different purposes. One finances lawsuits, the other helps individuals survive while waiting for justice.

It is important to begin with a clear definition. As Mark Twain wisely noted, “The difference between the almost right word and the right word is really a large matter, ’tis the difference between the lightning bug and the lightning.” If legislators and courts wish to regulate litigation financing, they must do so with precision, ensuring clarity in the law while also preserving the essential role that Consumer Legal Funding plays in supporting individuals and families during some of the most difficult periods of their lives.

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

Summary: Consumer legal funding (CLF) is a non-recourse financial product that helps people meet essential living expenses while their legal claims are pending. It does not finance lawsuits, dictate strategy, or control settlements. In fact, every state that has enacted CLF statutes has explicitly banned providers from influencing the litigation process.

1) What Consumer Legal Funding Is

CLF provides modest, non-recourse financial assistance, typically a few thousand dollars to individuals awaiting resolution of a claim. These funds are used for rent, food, childcare, or car payments, not for legal fees or trial costs. If the case is lost, the consumer owes nothing.

CLF is not an investment in lawsuits or law firms, it is an investment in the consumer. 

2) Why Control Is Banned

The attorney–client relationship is central to the justice system. CLF statutes protect it by prohibiting funders from interfering. Common provisions include:
– No control over litigation strategy or settlement.
– No right to select attorneys or direct discovery.
– No settlement vetoes. Only the client, guided by counsel, makes those decisions.
– No fee-sharing or referral payments.
– No practice of law. Funders cannot provide legal advice.

These bans are spelled out in statutes across the country. Violating them exposes providers to penalties, voided contracts, and regulatory action.

3) Non-Recourse Structure Removes Leverage

Control requires leverage, but CLF offers none. Because repayment is only due if the consumer recovers, providers cannot demand monthly payments or seize assets. They do not fund litigation costs, so they cannot threaten to cut off discovery or expert testimony. The consumer retains ownership of the claim and full authority over all decisions.

4) Ethical Safeguards Reinforce Statutes

Even without statutory language, attorney ethics rules bar outside influence:
– Lawyers must exercise independent judgment and loyalty to clients.
– Confidentiality rules prevent improper information-sharing.
– No fee-sharing with non-lawyers ensures funders cannot ‘buy’ influence.
– The decision to settle rests solely with the client, not third parties.

Together, these rules and statutes guarantee that litigation decisions remain with client and counsel.

5) Market Realities: Why Control Makes No Sense

CLF contracts are relatively small, especially compared to the cost of litigation. They are designed to cover groceries and rent, not discovery budgets or jury consultants. Trying to control a case would be both unlawful and economically irrational.

Because repayment is contingent, funders want efficient and fair resolutions, not drawn-out litigation. Their interests align with consumers and counsel: achieving just outcomes at reasonable speed.

6) Addressing Misconceptions

– Myth: Funders push for bigger settlements.
  Fact: They cannot veto settlements. Dragging out cases only increases risk and cost.

– Myth: Funders get privileged information.
  Fact: Attorneys control disclosures; privilege remains intact. Access to limited case status updates does not confer control.

– Myth: CLF pressure consumers to reject fair settlements.
  Fact: Statutes forbid interference. And because advances are non-recourse, consumers are not personally liable beyond case proceeds.

– Myth: CLF is an assignment of the claim.
  Fact: Consumers remain the sole parties in interest. Providers have only a contingent repayment right.

7) How Statutes Work in Practice

States that regulate CLF typically require:
1. Plain-language contracts advising consumers to consult counsel.
2. Cooling-off periods for rescission.
3. Bright-line bans on control over strategy or settlement.
4. No fee-sharing or referral payments.
5. Regulatory oversight through registration or examination.
6. Civil remedies for violations.

This model balances access to financial stability with ironclad protections for litigation independence.

8) The Consumer’s Perspective

CLF does not alter case strategy; it alters life circumstances. Without it, many injured individuals face eviction, repossession, or the inability to pay basic bills. That pressure can lead to ‘forced settlements.’ By covering essentials, CLF allows clients to consider their lawyer’s advice based on legal merits, not immediate financial desperation.

9) Compliance in Contracts

Standard CLF contracts reflect the law:
– Providers have no authority over legal decisions.
– Attorneys owe duties solely to clients.
– Terms granting control are void and unenforceable.

National providers adopt these clauses uniformly, even in states without explicit statutes, creating a strong industry baseline.

10) Enforcement and Oversight

Regulators can discipline providers, void unlawful terms, or impose penalties. Attorneys risk ethics sanctions if they allow third-party interference. Consumers may also have remedies under statute. These enforcement tools make attempted control both illegal and unprofitable.

11) Policy Rationale

Legislatures designed CLF frameworks to achieve two goals:
1. Preserve litigation integrity by keeping decisions between client and counsel.
2. Expand access to justice by giving consumers breathing room while claims proceed.

The explicit statutory bans on control ensure both goals are met.

Conclusion

Consumer legal funding is a support tool for people, not a lever over lawsuits. Statutes across the country make this crystal clear: CLF providers cannot influence litigation strategy, cannot veto settlements, and cannot practice law. The product is non-recourse, small in scale, and tightly regulated.

For consumers, CLF offers stability during difficult times. For the justice system, it preserves the attorney–client relationship and the independence of litigation. The result is access to justice without interference—because control of litigation is not only absent, but also expressly banned by law.

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

Over the past decade, insurance companies, tort reform advocates, and certain think tanks have increasingly pointed to “social inflation” as a driving force behind higher insurance premiums and larger jury awards. Let’s be clear “social inflation” is not a formally a defined economic concept; it’s an insurance industry narrative that describes some real legal and cultural trends The term itself is elastic, meant to describe cultural, legal, and economic shifts that allegedly lead to outsized liability costs. Critics have attempted to lump Consumer Legal Funding (CLF) into this category, claiming that it somehow fuels runaway verdicts and higher settlement values.

But such claims are deeply flawed. Consumer Legal Funding is fundamentally distinct from litigation financing or any mechanism that could impact the cost of litigation or influence the size of awards. CLF does not bankroll attorneys, experts, or trial strategies; rather, it provides modest, non-recourse financial assistance to injured individuals so they can pay rent, keep the lights on, and buy groceries while their legal claims move through an often slow and complex justice system.

Consumer Legal Funding has nothing to do with social inflation by exploring the mechanics of CLF, unpacking the definition of social inflation, analyzing the evidence, and dismantling the arguments insurers use to conflate the two.

Understanding Social Inflation

“Social inflation” is a term widely used in the insurance industry but often poorly defined. Broadly, it refers to increases in insurance claims costs beyond what can be explained by general economic inflation. Insurers believe it is due to several factors, including:

1. Expanding liability concepts – Courts and legislatures allowing broader recovery for damages.
2. Plaintiff-friendly juries – Larger awards due to shifting attitudes toward corporations and insurers.
3. Aggressive plaintiff bar strategies – Creative legal theories, demand of damages at high levels.
4. Erosion of tort reform – Judicial rulings striking down statutory caps or limits.

While these elements may influence claims costs, they have little to do with the day-to-day survival assistance provided through Consumer Legal Funding. CLF is not part of the litigation itself—it is part of the consumer’s household economy.

What Consumer Legal Funding Actually Is

Consumer Legal Funding is a simple, consumer-focused financial product:

• Non-recourse funds – The consumer receives a small amount of financial assistance (average $3,000–$5,000) against the potential proceeds of their legal claim. If they lose the case, they have no further obligation.
• Restricted use – The funds cannot be used to pay legal fees or litigation costs. They are meant for everyday living expenses such as rent, medical co-pays, utilities, and food.
• Separate from litigation – Attorneys remain fully in charge of legal strategy, and courts determine the value of the case without reference to whether a consumer has received CLF.
• Statutory protections – In states where CLF is regulated, statutes explicitly prohibit the funds from being used to finance litigation.

In essence, CLF is about financing life, not litigation it ensures that injured consumers are not put into a “forced settlement” simply because they cannot afford to wait for fair compensation.

The False Link Between CLF and Social Inflation

Opponents of CLF often argue that providing consumers with financial breathing room allows them to hold out for larger settlements, thereby inflating claims costs. This narrative is problematic for several reasons:

1. Settlements are driven by case value, not desperation.
   Settlement negotiations are based on liability facts, damages evidence, and the likelihood of success at trial. A consumer’s ability to pay rent has no bearing on whether a defendant is legally liable for an injury.
2. CLF levels the playing field, not tips it.
   Insurers routinely exploit financial desperation to force low-ball settlements. CLF prevents this imbalance but does not artificially inflate case value, it simply ensures consumers can wait for the fair value of their settlement and not a forced settlement. 
3. No evidence connects CLF to higher verdicts or insurance premiums.
   Despite repeated assertions, insurers have not produced empirical studies demonstrating that states with regulated CLF experience higher claim costs or premium growth compared to states without it.
4. Average funding amounts are too small to affect case economics.
   With fundings averaging just a few thousand dollars, it cannot influence the outcome of the litigation.

Social Inflation Drivers: CLF Isn’t One of Them

To further dismantle the narrative, it is important to examine what is thought to be the drivers of “social inflation” and show where CLF stands in relation.

1. Jury Attitudes and “Nuclear Verdicts”

Juries may award higher damages due to distrust of corporations or outrage over egregious conduct. These cultural and psychological factors are wholly unrelated to whether a consumer had help paying rent while waiting for trial.

2. Expanding Damages Categories

Courts and legislatures increasingly allow recovery for noneconomic damage or broaden definitions of liability. CLF has no influence over judicial doctrine or statutory reform.

3. Litigation Tactics 

CLF contracts explicitly bar funding companies from interfering in legal strategy.

By every measure, CLF is not a driver of social inflation but a consumer protection tool.

Evidence From Regulated States

Roughly a dozen states—including Ohio, Nebraska, Oklahoma, Utah, and Vermont—have enacted statutes regulating Consumer Legal Funding. These states continue to have competitive insurance markets, and there is no evidence of outsized premium growth attributable to CLF.

If CLF were truly a driver of so-called social inflation, one would expect observable differences in these states’ insurance markets compared to others. None exists.

Insurer Motivations for Blaming CLF

Why, then, do insurers persist in linking CLF to social inflation? Several strategic motivations are at play:

1. Deflection from internal cost drivers.
   Insurers face rising costs due to investment losses, catastrophic weather events, and corporate overhead. Blaming “social inflation” provides a convenient external scapegoat.
2. Preservation of settlement leverage.
   Low-ball settlements save insurers billions annually. CLF disrupts this model by giving consumers the financial means to reject unfair offers.
3. Regulatory advantage.
   By conflating CLF with commercial litigation finance, insurers push for broad disclosure and restrictions that would make CLF less accessible, thereby tilting the field back in their favor.

In short, attacks on CLF are less about economics and more about control of the settlement process.

Consumer Stories: The Human Impact

Behind every policy debate are real people. Consider these examples:

• Maria, a single mother in Ohio, suffered a serious injury in a car accident. While her case moved through litigation, she was unable to work. A $3,000 funding allowed her to pay rent and avoid eviction. Her case later settled for fair value based on her medical damages, not because she received CLF.
• James, a factory worker in Tennessee, used a $4,500 funding to cover medical co-pays and keep food on the table for his family. Without CLF, he would have been pressured to accept an early, inadequate settlement. His attorney, free from outside interference, negotiated based on case facts.

These stories illustrate that CLF prevents forced settlements, a concept fundamentally at odds with the idea of social inflation.

Reframing the Debate: CLF as a Consumer Protection Tool

Instead of vilifying CLF, policymakers and regulators should recognize it as a consumer protection mechanism that:

• Preserves access to justice by ensuring consumers can sustain themselves while cases proceed.
• Protects vulnerable populations from financial exploitation by insurers.
• Operates transparently under statutory frameworks that prohibit interference with litigation.
• Provides an alternative to payday loans or credit card debt.

By reframing CLF in this way, legislators can see that it is part of the solution to financial inequity in the justice system, not a contributor to systemic cost drivers like “social inflation”.

Conclusion

The narrative that Consumer Legal Funding contributes to social inflation is unsupported by evidence, inconsistent with the mechanics of the product, and misleading its intent. CLF does not increase jury awards, expand liability doctrines, or drive insurance premiums. Instead, it provides a lifeline for consumers caught in the limbo of pending legal claims.

Policymakers should reject the false linkage and recognize Consumer Legal Funding for what it is: a narrow, humane financial product that has nothing to do with so called “social inflation”, but everything to do with justice and survival.

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

—

When people talk about third party litigation financing, they often lump everything into one bucket—as if every type of funding that touches the legal system is essentially the same. But that’s a misconception. The world of legal finance is much more varied, and each type serves a distinct role for a distinct audience.

A good way to understand the differences is to step away from the courtroom and into the world of music. Think of Consumer Legal Funding as a rock band, Commercial Litigation Financing as a symphony orchestra, and Attorney Portfolio Financing as a gospel choir.

All three make music—they all provide funding connected to the legal system—but they produce very different sounds, are organized differently, and serve different purposes. Let’s explore these three “musical groups” of legal funding to understand how they work, why they exist, and what separates them.

Consumer Legal Funding: The Rock Band

Immediate, Personal, and Audience-Driven

A rock band connects directly with its fans. The music is raw, emotional, and often tied to the lived experiences of ordinary people. That’s exactly what Consumer Legal Funding does—it provides individuals with direct financial support while they are waiting for their personal injury cases to resolve.

Most people who seek consumer legal funding have been in a car accident, or experienced some other harm caused by negligence. While their cases work their way through the legal system, they still need to pay rent, buy groceries, keep the lights on, and support their families. Consumer Legal Funding steps in to help them cover these day-to-day expenses.

Like a rock band that thrives on the energy of a crowd, Consumer Legal Funding is closely tied to the needs of everyday people. It’s not about abstract legal theories or corporate strategy. It’s about giving real people financial breathing room so they can withstand the pressure from insurers who might otherwise push them to settle for less than they deserve.

Flexibility and Accessibility

Just as a rock band doesn’t require a massive concert hall or multimillion-dollar backing, Consumer Legal Funding is accessible on a small, personal scale. A consumer can request a few hundred or a few thousand dollars to cover immediate needs, and repayment is contingent on the case outcome. If the plaintiff loses, they owe nothing.

This non-recourse structure mirrors the risk of a rock band going on tour—they might make money, or they might not, but the fans are there for the experience. Similarly, Consumer Legal Funding companies take the risk that the case might not succeed, and they may not get their investment back.

Critics and Misconceptions

Rock bands often face criticism for being too loud, too disruptive, or too unconventional compared to “serious” classical music. Consumer Legal Funding gets similar pushback. Critics sometimes argue it encourages frivolous lawsuits or drives up settlement costs. But the reality is the opposite—the funds provided to a consumer doesn’t fund lawsuits; they fund life necessities for individuals already in the legal system.

Consumer Legal Funding’s role is narrow but vital. Like a rock band giving a voice to ordinary people, it empowers individuals who might otherwise be silenced by financial hardship.

Commercial Litigation Financing: The Symphony Orchestra

Complex, Structured, and High-Stakes

Where Consumer Legal Funding is the rock band of the legal funding world, Commercial Litigation Financing is the full symphony orchestra—large, complex, and meticulously coordinated.

Here, the players are not individuals injured in accidents but corporations, investors, and law firms involved in high-value commercial disputes. These cases can involve intellectual property battles, antitrust issues, international contract disputes, or shareholder actions. The stakes often run into the tens or hundreds of millions of dollars.

Like an orchestra, Commercial Litigation Financing is structured and multi-layered. Each section—strings, brass, woodwinds, percussion—must work together under the baton of a conductor. In litigation finance, this “conductor” is the funding company, aligning investors, lawyers, and plaintiffs toward a common goal: seeing the case through to resolution.

Strategic and Long-Term

Orchestras don’t play three-minute songs; they perform long symphonies that require endurance, precision, and careful planning. Similarly, Commercial Litigation Financing is not about immediate cash flow. It’s about supporting a complex legal strategy over years of litigation.

Funds can cover attorney fees, expert witnesses, discovery costs, and even corporate operations while a case drags on. The financing enables companies to pursue claims they might otherwise abandon because of the sheer cost and duration of litigation.

Audience and Impact

The audience for an orchestra is often more formal, more elite, and more willing to pay for a grand performance. Commercial Litigation Financing likewise serves a specialized, high-stakes audience: multinational corporations, hedge funds, and sophisticated investors. The outcomes affect entire industries and markets, not just individual households.

While a rock band might play in bars or stadiums, an orchestra plays in concert halls before an audience expecting refinement. That’s the difference in scale between Consumer Legal Funding and Commercial Litigation Financing.

Attorney Portfolio Financing: The Gospel Choir

Collective Strength and Community

If Consumer Legal Funding is a rock band and Commercial Litigation Financing is a symphony orchestra, then Attorney Portfolio Financing is a gospel choir. It’s powerful, collective, and rooted in the idea of strength in numbers.

Attorney Portfolio Financing provides capital to law firms by pooling together multiple cases—often personal injury or contingency fee cases—into one financing arrangement. Instead of betting on a single case, the funding spreads across a portfolio, much like the voices of a choir blend to create a unified sound.

Stability and Predictability

A gospel choir doesn’t rely on one soloist to carry the performance. If one voice falters, the rest keep singing. Similarly, portfolio financing reduces risk because the outcome of any one case doesn’t determine the success of the financing. The strength lies in the collective performance of many cases.

This allows law firms to take on more clients, expand their practices, and better withstand the financial ups and downs of litigation. For clients, it means their attorneys have the resources to see their cases through rather than being pressured into quick settlements.

Purpose and Spirit

Gospel choirs aren’t just about music—they’re about inspiration, resilience, and community. Attorney Portfolio Financing carries a similar spirit. It’s designed not only to provide financial stability for law firms but also to empower them to serve clients more effectively.

While the audience for a gospel choir is often the community itself, the “audience” for portfolio financing is law firms and, indirectly, the clients who benefit from better-resourced representation.

Comparing the Three Sounds

To appreciate the differences, let’s put the three side by side:

Why These Distinctions Matter

Understanding these distinctions isn’t just an academic exercise—it has real implications for policy, regulation, and public perception. Too often, critics conflate Consumer Legal Funding with Commercial Litigation Financing or assume Attorney Portfolio Financing operates the same way as individual case advances.

But regulating a rock band as if it were an orchestra—or treating a gospel choir as if it were a solo act—would miss the point entirely. Each type of legal funding has its own purpose, structure, and audience.

• Consumer Legal Funding keeps people afloat in times of crisis.
• Commercial Litigation Financing enables corporations to fight complex battles on equal footing.
• Attorney Portfolio Financing stabilizes law firms and expands access to justice.

All three are part of the broader “music” of legal finance, but they are distinct genres with distinct contributions.

Conclusion: Harmony Through Diversity

Music would be dull if every performance sounded the same. The same is true for legal finance. A rock band, a symphony orchestra, and a gospel choir all create music, but their sounds, audiences, and purposes differ dramatically.

Similarly, Consumer Legal Funding, Commercial Litigation Financing, and Attorney Portfolio Financing are all forms of legal finance, but each plays a unique role. Recognizing these differences is crucial for policymakers, industry professionals, and the public.

When we appreciate the rock band, the orchestra, and the choir for what they are, we begin to see the full richness of the legal finance “soundtrack.” Together, they form a diverse ecosystem that, when balanced correctly, ensures both individuals and institutions can pursue justice without being silenced by financial pressure.