Trending Now
  • Consumer Legal Funding Is Not the Problem Facing America’s Truckers
  • Rowling Foundation Offers to Fund NHS Single-Sex Space Challenges
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.

About the author

Eric Schuller

Eric Schuller

Consumer

View All
Consumer

Consumer Legal Funding Is Not the Problem Facing America’s Truckers

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

America’s trucking industry deserves a fair civil justice system. So do injured consumers. Those principles are not in conflict.

In his recent Transport Topics commentary, “Truckers Deserve Lawsuit Transparency,” American Trucking Associations Chairman Greg Hodgen raises concerns about third-party litigation financing. He describes hedge funds, private equity firms and foreign sovereign wealth funds investing in lawsuits for profit.

Those concerns deserve discussion. But that discussion becomes problematic when Consumer Legal Funding is swept into the same category.

They are fundamentally different products.

Consumer Legal Funding is not Wall Street financing a lawsuit. It is not a hedge fund paying attorneys’ fees or litigation expenses. And it does not give a funding company control over litigation strategy or settlement decisions.

Consumer Legal Funding provides relatively small amounts of financial assistance directly to individuals who have pending legal claims and need help paying ordinary household expenses while those claims are resolved.

Simply put, it is funding lives, not litigation.

Consider the Independent Truck Driver

The trucking industry itself provides a good example of why Consumer Legal Funding exists.

Consider an independent truck driver who is seriously injured when another vehicle runs a red light and crashes into his truck.

The accident was not his fault, but suddenly he cannot work.

For an independent driver, that can mean his income stops immediately. Yet his mortgage or rent remains due. He still has to buy groceries, keep the electricity on, make vehicle payments and support his family.

His attorney may be pursuing a legitimate claim against the responsible party, but claims do not get resolved overnight. The defendant may have the resources to wait months for a settlement. The independent truck driver may not.

A Consumer Legal Funding company might provide him with $4,000 to help pay those household expenses while his claim is pending.

That money does not pay his lawyer. It does not pay an expert witness. It does not finance the lawsuit. And the funding company does not tell his attorney how to handle the case or whether to accept a settlement.

It helps the truck driver keep his family financially stable while he waits for the legal system to work.

And because Consumer Legal Funding is non-recourse, if he receives no recovery from his legal claim, he owes the funding company nothing.

That truck driver is not part of the litigation financing problem described in Hodgen’s article. He is a consumer who needs financial help because of an accident that was not his fault.

The Distinction Matters

Hodgen describes investors “pouring money into civil litigation” and argues that outside capital can fuel inflated claims and settlement demands. He also raises concerns that third-party financiers can discourage settlements when their financial interests depend on obtaining a larger recovery.

Those concerns do not accurately describe Consumer Legal Funding.

Consumer Legal Funding companies do not determine whether a lawsuit is filed. They do not select the consumer’s attorney. They do not direct litigation strategy. They do not determine the value of a claim or decide whether a settlement should be accepted.

Those decisions remain with the consumer and the consumer’s attorney.

There is also an enormous difference in scale. Consumer Legal Funding typically involves relatively modest amounts, often approximately $3,000 to $5,000, provided directly to an individual consumer. Commercial litigation financing can involve millions of dollars invested in individual lawsuits, law firms or portfolios of cases.

Policymakers should not treat those transactions as interchangeable simply because both have been placed under the broad umbrella of “litigation financing.”

Consumer Legal Funding Can Help Prevent Forced Settlements

There is another side to this debate that deserves greater attention.

Financial pressure can influence litigation decisions just as surely as outside investment can.

Imagine that independent truck driver again. His attorney believes the claim is worth substantially more than the insurance company is offering, but it may take another six months to reach a fair resolution.

The defendant can wait.

The truck driver facing next month’s mortgage payment may not be able to.

Without some financial breathing room, he could be forced to accept an early settlement, not because it fairly compensates him for his injuries, but because his family needs money immediately.

Consumer Legal Funding can help level that imbalance.

It does not guarantee a larger settlement. It simply gives the consumer something critically important: time to make a decision based on the merits of the claim rather than immediate financial desperation.

Non-Recourse Is Not Traditional Lending

Hodgen’s article also characterizes certain litigation financing arrangements as “predatory lending.”

But Consumer Legal Funding is fundamentally different from a traditional loan because repayment is contingent upon the consumer recovering proceeds from the underlying legal claim.

If there is no recovery, the consumer owes nothing.

The funding company therefore assumes the risk that it may receive less than the contracted amount or nothing at all.

That distinction matters and should be recognized when policymakers consider how these products should be treated.

Transparency Should Be Relevant to the Litigation

The article argues that litigation financing arrangements should be disclosed because defendants may otherwise be unaware that an outside party has a financial interest in a lawsuit.

That argument may be relevant when a commercial litigation financier possesses contractual rights that could influence litigation strategy or settlement.

Consumer Legal Funding presents a very different situation.

If the funding company cannot control the litigation, cannot select the attorney and cannot decide whether a consumer accepts a settlement, what legitimate purpose is served by automatically giving the defendant or its insurer access to the consumer’s private financial contract?

If a judge determines that a particular agreement is relevant to an issue in a case, normal discovery procedures can address it.

Automatic disclosure, however, could reveal something very different: how financially vulnerable the plaintiff is.

The defendant learning that an injured consumer needed funding to pay rent, utilities or groceries could gain information about how long that consumer can financially withstand litigation. That risks creating leverage for the very party with the resources to wait.

Truckers and Consumers Should Not Be Pitted Against Each Other

Hodgen makes an important point when he emphasizes that more than 90% of motor carriers operate 10 trucks or fewer.

Those businesses deserve protection from fraudulent lawsuits, staged accidents and abusive litigation practices.

But an independent truck driver injured through someone else’s negligence deserves protection too.

These goals can coexist.

Congress can address multimillion-dollar commercial investments in litigation without treating a $4,000 funding used to keep an injured family in its home as the same product.

It can demand transparency when outside investors exercise control or influence over litigation without automatically exposing an individual consumer’s personal financial circumstances to defendants and insurance companies.

Regulate the Product, Not the Label

The real problem is that “third-party litigation financing” has become an umbrella term covering very different products.

Policymakers should distinguish between commercial litigation financing, where institutional capital may finance litigation, law firms or portfolios of cases, and Consumer Legal Funding, where relatively small amounts are provided directly to individuals for personal and household expenses.

Hodgen concludes his article by calling for “transparency, accountability and fairness in our courts.”

We agree.

But fairness requires precision.

A hedge fund investing millions of dollars in litigation is not the same as an independent truck driver receiving $4,000 to make his mortgage payment and put food on the table after an accident that was not his fault.

One is funding litigation. The other is helping fund someone's life while the litigation runs its course.

America’s truckers deserve a fair civil justice system. So do America’s consumers.

Protecting one does not require harming the other.

Consumer Legal Funding is not the problem. For consumers facing financial hardship through no fault of their own, it can be the lifeline that allows them to keep their families financially stable while they wait for the justice system to work.

Consumer

Consumer Legal Funding Is Not Third-Party Litigation Financing, ARC Argues

A new commentary pushes back on the tendency to lump consumer legal funding together with commercial third-party litigation financing, arguing the two are fundamentally different products that warrant different policy treatment.

Writing in The National Law Review, Eric K. Schuller, president of the Alliance for Responsible Consumer Legal Funding (ARC), contends that consumer legal funding (CLF) is a modest, non-recourse product that helps injured individuals cover household costs — rent, groceries, utilities, childcare — while their claims proceed, rather than an investment in the litigation itself. Typical transactions run $3,000 to $5,000, carry no repayment obligation if the case fails, and give the funder no control over legal strategy.

Commercial litigation finance, by contrast, involves institutional investors deploying millions into business disputes. On that basis, Schuller argues CLF cannot be blamed for a so-called "tort tax," since it neither causes accidents nor finances litigation expenses. "If Consumer Legal Funding disappeared tomorrow, accidents would still happen," he writes.

He points to state high-court decisions — Maslowski v. Prospect Funding Partners in Minnesota and Ruth v. Cherokee Funding in Georgia — and to states including Kansas, New York, California, and Georgia that regulate CLF separately, alongside a U.S. Government Accountability Office report describing commercial funding as institutional and corporate in nature. ARC says it supports responsible CLF regulation — licensing, plain-language contracts, cancellation rights, and prohibitions on controlling litigation — while opposing measures that treat CLF as commercial litigation finance.

Consumer

Independence Day Op-Ed Frames Consumer Legal Funding as the Freedom to Pursue Justice

In an Independence Day editorial, the Alliance for Responsible Consumer Legal Funding (ARC) argues that meaningful freedom includes the ability of injured Americans to pursue their legal claims without financial desperation forcing them into unfair settlements. The piece positions consumer legal funding as a practical tool for keeping the outcome of a case tied to its facts rather than to a plaintiff's bank balance.

Writing in the National Law Review, ARC president Eric Schuller contends that "justice delayed can quickly become justice denied when mounting bills force individuals into decisions they otherwise would never make." Defendants, he argues, understand this dynamic and can use the length of the civil justice process to pressure vulnerable plaintiffs into accepting less than their claims are worth.

Schuller distinguishes consumer legal funding from commercial litigation finance and traditional lending. These are typically small, non-recourse advances — often $3,000 to $5,000 — used for everyday necessities such as rent, groceries, and medical bills while a claim proceeds. Because the funding is non-recourse, a consumer who loses the underlying case owes nothing. ARC's guiding principle, he writes, is "Funding Lives, Not Litigation."

The editorial also makes the case for responsible oversight, endorsing disclosure requirements, attorney acknowledgment, and prohibitions on funders influencing litigation strategy — safeguards intended to protect consumers while preserving their access to the tool.