Trending Now
  • "Take Care of Maya" Family Battles Former Lawyers Over $42M Litigation Loan

Consumer Legal Funding Is a Lifeline for Americans Living Paycheck to Paycheck

By Eric Schuller |

Consumer Legal Funding Is a Lifeline for Americans Living Paycheck to Paycheck

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.

About the author

Eric Schuller

Eric Schuller

Consumer

View All

North Carolina Becomes First State to Ban Third-Party Litigation Funding

North Carolina has become the first state in the nation to enact an outright ban on third-party litigation funding, after Governor Josh Stein signed House Bill 315 into law. The measure makes it unlawful for outside investors to finance civil lawsuits in exchange for a financial interest tied to the outcome of the case, marking a significant departure from the disclosure-and-transparency approach adopted by other states.

As reported by WWAY-TV3, the law defines litigation investment as providing money for the fees, costs, or expenses of pending or potential civil proceedings in return for compensation contingent on the result. The statute authorizes the state attorney general to seek injunctions and civil penalties against violators, though certain activities are carved out from the prohibition.

The bill drew broad legislative support, passing the House unanimously and clearing the Senate by a 45-1 margin. Business groups, including the North Carolina Chamber and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce's Institute for Legal Reform, backed the measure, arguing it strengthens the state's legal and business climate. Critics counter that third-party funding can expand access to the courts for parties who otherwise lack the resources to pursue meritorious claims.

The development represents a notable escalation in the regulatory debate over litigation finance in the United States. While states such as Ohio and others have advanced transparency requirements, North Carolina's outright prohibition sets a new precedent that funders, defense interests, and legislators in other jurisdictions are likely to watch closely.

“Take Care of Maya” Family Battles Former Lawyers Over $42M Litigation Loan

The family at the heart of the Netflix documentary "Take Care of Maya" is now locked in a dispute with its former attorneys over the proceeds of a litigation loan, in a case that puts the mechanics of litigation finance in an unusually public spotlight. Jack Kowalski and his daughter Maya, whose ordeal with a rare chronic illness and a Florida hospital drew national attention, are challenging the fees claimed by the lawyers who once represented them.

As reported by Bloomberg Law, the dispute centers on a $42 million litigation funding loan and nearly $10 million in attorneys' fees now in contention. The family's current counsel alleges that the prior firm, AndersonGlynn LLP of Jacksonville, "committed flagrant, serious, and repeated violations of their professional, ethical, and fiduciary duties" during the representation. The matter is being heard in Florida's Twelfth Judicial Circuit.

The fight illustrates a recurring tension in funded litigation: when sizable awards meet layered financing arrangements and contingency fees, the division of proceeds can become its own battleground. Disputes over how loan repayments, interest, and legal fees are calculated against a recovery are increasingly common as litigation finance scales.

For an industry often criticized for operating out of public view, the high profile of the Kowalski case offers a rare, concrete look at how litigation loans intersect with attorney compensation — and what can go wrong when the relationship between client, counsel, and funder breaks down.

Peter Thiel-Backed “Objection” Turns the Gawker Playbook Into an AI Tribunal for Journalists

By John Freund |

A decade after he secretly bankrolled Hulk Hogan's lawsuit that bankrupted Gawker, billionaire Peter Thiel is again funding an effort aimed at the press — this time through a startup that lets the wealthy pay to put reporters on trial before an artificial-intelligence "jury." The venture, called Objection, was founded by Aron D'Souza, the lawyer who orchestrated the Thiel-financed campaign against Gawker, and launched in April 2026 with seed money from Thiel, Balaji Srinivasan, and venture firms Social Impact Capital and Off Piste Capital.

As reported by The Hollywood Reporter, Objection works as a private arbitration service. For a starting fee of roughly $2,000, a client can challenge a published article. Human investigators — ranging from recent graduates to former CIA and FBI agents — gather evidence, which is then assessed claim-by-claim by multiple large language models acting as jurors. The system issues an "Honor Index" score grading a journalist's accuracy and integrity, and clients can pay extra to amplify favorable findings on social media.

The company's first target is a Hollywood Reporter investigation, brought by a Purdue Pharma heir disputing 2021 coverage of his image as an ethical investor. Media lawyers and First Amendment scholars warn the model could chill reporting that relies on confidential sources, with one attorney describing it as "a high-tech protection racket for the rich and powerful." The case underscores how litigation — and the money behind it — has become a tool to shape, and sometimes silence, coverage of the powerful.