Trending Now
  • Burford Issues YPF Litigation Update Ahead of Pivotal Appeal Hearing
Consumer

Consumer Legal Funding and Social Inflation: Clearing the Misconceptions

By Eric Schuller |
September 11, 2025

Consumer Legal Funding and Social Inflation: Clearing the Misconceptions

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.

Secure Your Funding Below
Secure Your Funding Sidebar

About the author

Eric Schuller

Eric Schuller

Consumer

View All
Consumer

Consumer Legal Funding: A Quiet Force Driving Innovation and Economic Welfare

By Eric Schuller |


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.

Announcements Consumer

The Alliance for Responsible Consumer Legal Funding Applauds Governor Newsom for Signing AB 931

By John Freund |

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.

Consumer

Let’s Get the Definition Right: Litigation Financing is Not Consumer Legal Funding

By Eric Schuller |

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.