Stay on top of regulatory updates taking place throughout various jurisdictions across the globe.

As LFJ reported last week, momentum continues to build behind state-level legislative proposals that seek to impose new rules governing the use of third-party litigation funding in the U.S. 

Reporting by the AP covers a new development in the Georgia state legislature, where the Senate has unanimously passed the second part of Gov. Brian Kemp’s legislative package aimed at tort reform and third-party litigation funding. Senate Bill 69, which passed the Senate last Thursday with 52 Yea votes, amends state law to include new provisions governing the involvement of litigation funders.

SB 69 requires third-party funders register with Georgia’s Department of Banking and Finance, as well as prohibiting any foreign individuals or organisation from funding litigation in the state. The bill also sets out disclosure requirements for cases where a litigation funding agreement is present and puts in place restrictions on a funder’s ability to control the litigation process.

Senate President Pro Tem John Kennedy, a sponsor of the bill, said that SB 69  “combats the growing foreign influence” in Georgia lawsuits, and argued that the new rules contained within the bill act as a “consumer protection measure”. The Georgia Trial Lawyers Association, which opposes these attempts at reform, stated that there is “still work to be done to ensure SB 69 fairly addresses its intended purpose”. 

SB 69 will now join SB 68, the part of Gov. Kemp’s package that primarily deals with tort reform, to be debated in the House and scrutinised by a bi-partisan subcommittee convened by House Rules Committee Chairman Butch Parrish. 

The full text and status of Senate Bill 69 can be accessed on the Georgia General Assembly website.

Today, the International Legal Finance Association is announcing its opposition to the Litigation Transparency Act of 2025, which would force public disclosure of all financing in civil cases in federal courts. 

The sweeping nature of the bill would harm small-scale inventors, startups, small and family-owned businesses, and individual Americans who partner with legal funders because they otherwise would not have the resources to assert their rights, protect their property, and defend their livelihoods.  This bill would force disclosure of the sensitive details of their legal strategies and is a blatant attempt to further tilt the legal system in favor of the biggest corporate players resulting in a dramatic reduction in civil litigation against them.  This bill would also partially nullify liability for America’s largest tech and insurance companies. 

Paul Kong, Executive Director, said: 

“The effect of the legislation is devastating to the economic health of our nation and the Rule of Law. The bill would harm small businesses that have been wronged by large corporations and are seeking redress in court. There should never be a financial barrier to entry to civil litigation, and if this law is enacted, that is exactly what will happen. Only the litigants with enough money to support large professional legal teams for months of litigation will have a chance to protect their intellectual property from Big Tech’s infringement or to force Big Insurance to pay rightful claims. It is no surprise that the US Chamber of Commerce, the country’s largest insurance industry groups, and Big Tech have expressed support for the bill, as they all stand to benefit from a system like that. They are eager to preserve their ability to wield massive legal teams and resources to bully those they have harmed. 

This bill is a harmful solution in search of a problem. Courts already have the authority to order disclosure of financing when relevant and are in the best position to determine the relevancy of any financing agreement to the merits of the litigation. In the overwhelming majority of cases, courts have held that the details of legal finance agreements are not relevant to the underlying merits of cases and should be protected rather than turned over to the opposition in litigation. 

The bill’s corporate champions are trying to scare up support by invoking the specter of malign foreign actors exploiting our legal system but they cannot cite any actual examples of this threat materializing, with good reason. As civil litigation experts have noted repeatedly, existing law, court rules, and ethical guidelines provide litigants ample ability to maintain control of their cases and ensure attorneys don’t breach their duties of loyalty and confidentiality. Courts and corporate defendants themselves are also equipped to guard against the release of sensitive information, including through the issuance of a protective order. Lawmakers should oppose this effort and instead stand with small businesses to defend our free enterprise system. 

ILFA opposes the Litigation Transparency Act and will seek to educate the Members of the Judiciary Committee and the House of Representatives on the dangers of this legislation and the true motives of its proponents.” 

About the International Legal Finance Association 

The International Legal Finance Association (ILFA) represents the global commercial legal finance community, and its mission is to engage, educate and influence legislative, regulatory and judicial landscapes as the voice of the commercial legal finance industry. It is the only global association of commercial legal finance companies and is an independent, non-profit trade association promoting the highest standards of operation and service for the commercial legal finance sector. ILFA has local chapter representation around the world. 

For more information, visit www.ILFA.com and find us on LinkedIn and X.

The following is a contributed piece from Rupert Cunningham, Director for Growth and Membership Engagement at the International Legal Finance Association (ILFA).

In their call for more EU regulation last week, AmCham EU, Business Europe and their co-signatories make misleading and inaccurate allegations about third-party litigation funding. These calls have been repeated by the same groups over and over again, pushed by big corporations that simply do not want those harmed by their wrongful behaviour to have recourse in the judicial system. ILFA will continue to counter these claims in the strongest terms. Below we unravel some of the most common misleading statements:

Myth: “Third-party litigation funders currently operate in a regulatory vacuum and without any transparency requirements.”

There is no regulatory vacuum. Litigation funders are regulated under company law in the same way as any other business, for example, the Directive on unfair business-to-consumer commercial practices and the Directive on unfair terms in consumer contracts. Specific to litigation funding, activities are regulated by the Representative Actions Directive and the Collective Redress Directive.

Publicly traded funders are further regulated through legislation on securities and financial instruments and by the relevant stock exchanges and financial authorities. This includes publishing annual reports on financial performance. Examples of other EU rules that apply to listed funders include the Shareholder Rights Directive, Prospectus Regulation, MIFID II.

Lawyers engaged in litigation are bound by professional, regulatory, and fiduciary responsibilities to represent the best interests of their clients where they practise.

Myth: “A civil justice climate that is abundant in abusive claims and mass private third-party funded litigation, creates a chilling effect that deters businesses from innovating, investing, competing, and prospering.”

Supporting meritorious litigation does not deter businesses from innovating and prospering – it deters corporate wrongdoing. As long as companies behave responsibly and comply with the obligations set out in the law, they have nothing to fear from litigation funding.

Myth: “If civil litigation remains funded by unregulated private third parties, we expect a surge in speculative litigation in the EU, which would undermine public confidence in the European justice systems at a time when maintaining faith in our democratic institutions is so critical.”

Far from undermining public confidence in the legal system, a recent independent report from the European Law Institute (ELI) concluded litigation funding plays a ‘functionally vital role in facilitating access to justice in many jurisdictions’.^[1]

With public funding (legal aid) increasingly concentrated in the criminal justice sphere, litigation funding offers vital assistance to claimants bringing meritorious civil claims to courts. Greater access to justice, supported by litigation funding, leads to the development of better legal jurisprudence – a benefit to our legal system and to the rule of the law.

Myth: “TPLF is a for-profit business model that allows private financiers, investment firms, and hedge funds, to sign confidential deals with lawyers or qualified entities to invest in lawsuits or arbitration in exchange for a significant portion of any compensation that may be awarded, sometimes as much as 40% of the total compensation but can go even substantially higher.”

Litigation funder’s fees reflect the level of risk undertaken (which will vary) and are assessed case-by-case.

Many funded cases are “David vs. Goliath” in nature with well-resourced defendants. This requires substantial upfront financial investment to level the playing field and for cases to proceed. In the UK sub-postmasters’ recent successful claim against the Post Office, the Post Office spent nearly 250m GBP on its defence.

Myth: “The financial incentives of such practices encourage frivolous and predatory litigation, but they also shortchange genuine claimants and consumers.”

Litigation funding is provided on a non-recourse basis, i.e. if the case is unsuccessful, the funder loses their entire investment. There is no logical financial incentive for litigation funders to fund frivolous legal claims. Funders’ due-diligence checks assist the justice system by weeding out unmeritorious claims that have a poor chance of success when put before a court. The approval rate for funding opportunities is as low as 3-5%.

Myth: “The introduction of a purely profit-motivated third party, often non-EU based, into the traditional lawyer-client relationship, raises serious ethical concerns and presents an economic security threat for Europe.”

The letter presents no substantive evidence that litigation funding is being used by ‘non-EU’ entities to destabilise the European economy or legal systems. ILFA suggests that experienced judges and lawyers operating in EU legal systems are more than capable of identifying threats to the integrity of our legal systems and safeguarding against the misuse or abuse of the court system for geopolitical or other aims.

Myth: “Funders are frequently the initiators of claims and may exercise control over decisions taken on behalf of claimants, and in this context, they prioritise their own financial aims over the interests of claimants. Faced with years of litigation brought by claimants with support from well-resourced funders, expensive legal costs, and reputational risk, defendants are often forced to settle even unmeritorious claims.”

Litigation funders make passive outside investments, meaning that funders do not initiate claims or control the matters in which they invest. A recipient of legal funding, and their legal counsel, maintain full control over the conduct of the case, including strategy and ultimate decision-making.

Myth: “If Europe continues to neglect proper oversight of private TPLF we risk our courts becoming profit facilitators for litigation funders, at the expense of European companies, consumers, and the integrity of our court systems.”

The reference to European companies is a curious one. Litigation funders make no distinction between EU or ‘non-EU’ claimants, basing funding awards on factual criteria such as the legal merits of a case, budget, funding required, and any other award and risks associated with the case.

This latest call from big businesses makes clear they continue to side with corporate wrongdoers, diminishing the legitimate rights of businesses and consumers to access justice and exercise their rights before the courts.

“Misleading and inaccurate claims like these appear around the world as part of a global lobbying effort to encourage unnecessary and burdensome regulation of the legal finance sector,” said Rupert Cunningham, ILFA’s newly appointed Global Director for Growth and Membership Engagement.  “Robustly challenging these persistent myths is critical to improving understanding of the sector amongst policy makers and wider industry stakeholders. That is why it is so important that international organisations like ILFA are able to respond to these claims on behalf of the sector, wherever and whenever they appear.”

By enabling the pursuit of meritorious claims, litigation funding levels the playing field and creates an equality of means between otherwise unequal parties.

[1] https://www.europeanlawinstitute.eu/fileadmin/user_upload/p_eli/Publications/ELI_Principles_Governing_the_Third_Party_Funding_of_Litigation.pdf