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.