Trending Now
Consumer

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

By Eric Schuller |
November 17, 2025

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
Consumer

ARC’s Schuller Argues Consumer Legal Funding Safeguards Have Become a Bipartisan Settlement

The president of the Alliance for Responsible Consumer Legal Funding has argued that consumer protection and access to legal funding are not competing goals, pointing to near-identical safeguards enacted in states at opposite ends of the political spectrum.

Writing in the National Law Review, Eric Schuller compares the frameworks adopted in Kansas, Utah, California and New York and finds the same core provisions recurring regardless of which party controls the legislature. The starting point is the product itself: consumer legal funding is non-recourse, so repayment depends solely on the proceeds of the claim and a consumer who recovers nothing owes nothing.

From there, the statutes converge on disclosure. Kansas HB 2518 requires agreements to use "common, everyday language" and to state all charges and the maximum amount the consumer could owe; New York requires "common, understandable language" alongside a repayment schedule. Cancellation rights follow a similar pattern, with Kansas and New York providing ten business days, Utah HB 280 extending its window from five days to ten, and California allowing five business days to rescind.

Each state also builds in the claimant's attorney. Kansas requires an attorney acknowledgment confirming the disclosures were reviewed and that no referral fee was paid, without which the contract is null and void. All four bar funding companies from influencing the conduct, settlement or resolution of the claim, leaving those decisions with the consumer and counsel.

On enforcement, Kansas permits penalties of up to $10,000 per willful violation, California provides statutory damages and attorney's fees, and New York allows a company to forfeit its right to recovery.

Consumer

New York Times Investigation Examines Securitization of Consumer Legal Funding Advances

A New York Times investigation published Wednesday reports that some of the largest consumer legal funding companies are bundling cash advances made to personal injury plaintiffs into asset-backed securities sold to investors, and examines how that financing cycle interacts with a sharp rise in personal injury litigation.

As reported by The New York Times, reporters Ellen Gabler, Robert Gebeloff and Julie Tate identified six major funders that securitize their advances, accounting for more than 90% of advances nationwide according to industry trade group figures. The Times found more than two dozen securitization deals since 2020, representing hundreds of thousands of cases and raising $2.8 billion from investors. Advances carry fees and interest averaging 35% to 45% a year, and in one cited example a New York plaintiff who received $76,500 in advances owed at least $1.4 million by the time her case settled.

The article situates this alongside a 70% increase in personal injury filings in state courts over the past decade, and notes that since 2023 companies including Geico, Allstate, Uber and FedEx have brought at least 60 civil racketeering suits accusing lawyers and medical providers of inflating claims. Funders quoted in the piece dispute that fraud is widespread, with the American Legal Finance Association's Jack Kelly arguing that cutting off securitization would cut off the supply of money to victims. The Times also reports that more than a dozen states have restricted third-party litigation funding, with West Virginia the first to explicitly limit securitization.

The Alliance for Responsible Consumer Legal Funding responded to the report by calling for regulation rather than restriction.

"Some of the conduct described in The New York Times article is exactly the type of conduct responsible regulation should prevent," said Eric Schuller, President of the Alliance for Responsible Consumer Legal Funding. "New York has now put strong protections in place that directly address many of these concerns, while states such as Kansas have adopted similarly comprehensive regulatory frameworks. The answer is not to take Consumer Legal Funding away from injured consumers who need help paying their rent, mortgage, utilities or putting food on the table while their case moves through the legal system. The answer is to establish clear rules, enforce those rules and hold anyone who violates them accountable. Responsible regulation protects consumers while preserving access to Consumer Legal Funding for the people who truly need it."

Consumer

ARC Argues the Cost of Waiting Belongs in the Litigation Funding Debate

The Alliance for Responsible Consumer Legal Funding has published a commentary arguing that debates over litigation costs concentrate on indirect costs passed through the economy while overlooking the direct financial pressure on injured consumers waiting for their claims to resolve.

As reported by the National Law Review, the piece was written by Eric K. Schuller, president of ARC. It draws on U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics data showing average household expenditures reached $78,535 in 2024, or roughly $6,545 a month, with housing averaging $2,189 per month, transportation $1,110 and food approximately $847. Extended across a claim's lifespan, ordinary household expenditures average about $157,070 over 24 months and $235,605 over 36 months.

Schuller cites the Federal Reserve's 2026 report on household economic well-being, which found that only 63% of adults said they could cover a $400 emergency expense entirely with cash or its equivalent. The commentary argues that if many households struggle to absorb a $400 shock, expecting an injured consumer to absorb months or years of reduced income while a claim moves through the system is unrealistic.

The article is careful to note that the figures do not suggest an injured consumer must replace every dollar of normal household spending. It describes Consumer Legal Funding as non-recourse and not used to pay attorneys, writing that the funds "can help consumers meet ordinary household obligations" and that "if there is no recovery, the consumer owes the funding company nothing."