Trending Now
Consumer

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

August 10, 2026

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

View All
Consumer

ARC Releases New Consumer Survey: Three Years Apart, Consumers Tell the Same Story

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

The Numbers Haven't Changed, and That's the Story. Three Years Apart, Consumers Report the Same Financial Need and the Same Value in Consumer Legal Funding.

The Alliance for Responsible Consumer Legal Funding (ARC) has released its 2026 Consumer Survey, providing a new look at how consumers use Consumer Legal Funding and why access to the funds remains important while legal claims are pending.

Hundreds of consumers from across the country reported turning to the product for help paying rent or a mortgage, utilities, food, transportation, and other essential household expenses that cannot wait for the legal system to run its course.

ARC's second major consumer survey in three years reinforces the findings from 2023. Across both surveys, consumers describe a real need for funds to support everyday life, and more than nine out of ten say they would use Consumer Legal Funding again if needed.

The Need Has Remained Remarkably Consistent

Consumer Legal Funding is sometimes confused with financing the costs of litigation. The survey data tells a very different story.

Consumers reported needing financial assistance for the ordinary expenses of everyday life while waiting for their legal claims to be resolved. Housing, utilities, food, transportation, and other household obligations do not stop because someone has been injured or has a pending legal claim.

Perhaps the most striking finding from the comparison involves housing.

In 2023, 73.00% of respondents reported difficulty paying their rent or mortgage. In 2026, the number was 73.03%.

That consistency is significant. Two separate groups of consumers, three years apart, identified essentially the exact same financial pressure as the leading reason they needed assistance.

The same pattern appears with other basic necessities. Difficulty paying utilities increased from 58.35% in 2023 to 61.30% in 2026, while difficulty paying for food increased from 54.00% to 60.07%.

These consumers are not describing litigation expenses. They are describing household expenses.

They are trying to keep a roof over their heads, keep the lights on, put food on the table, make car payments, and maintain financial stability while their legal claims move through the system.

That is the real-world function of Consumer Legal Funding: Funding Lives, Not Litigation.

An Accident Can Create an Immediate Financial Crisis

The circumstances surrounding the need for funding are equally important.

In 2023, 70.64% of respondents were not employed when they received Consumer Legal Funding. In 2026, that number was 72.08%. Even more telling, the percentage reporting that their lack of employment resulted from the circumstances creating their need for funding, such as a car accident, increased from 58.94% in 2023 to 65.72% in 2026. Personal injury and automobile claims remained the dominant claim type, representing 76.83% of respondents in 2023 and 78.45% in 2026.

"Since my injury, I've had to retire from work. My funding company has checked in while waiting on my settlement to see if I need additional help through the process. This has been positive for me."

The practical sequence is easy to understand.

A consumer is injured. That injury may interfere with the person's ability to work. Household bills continue arriving. Meanwhile, the legal claim may take months or longer to resolve.

The legal system operates on one timeline. A family's financial obligations operate on another.

Consumer Legal Funding can help bridge that gap by providing financial resources while ordinary household expenses continue and the consumer's legal claim remains unresolved.

"I received money early in the process when I was very stressed, in a lot of pain, and overwhelmed because of my head injury. They made it easy for me to understand and receive."

That distinction is essential to understanding the product. Consumer Legal Funding is not about paying attorneys' fees, experts, discovery costs, or other litigation expenses. The surveys repeatedly identify rent or mortgage payments, utilities, food, transportation, and other household obligations as the financial pressures consumers are facing.

For Many Consumers, There Are Few Alternatives

One of the clearest findings from the ARC surveys is that many consumers appear to have very limited financial alternatives when they turn to Consumer Legal Funding.

In 2023, 39.13% of respondents selected "None" when asked which listed financial alternatives they had used before obtaining Consumer Legal Funding. By 2026, that number had increased to 43.19%. Reliance on family and friends was also significant, although it declined from 38.22% in 2023 to 34.51% in 2026. By comparison, credit cards were used by 19.68% of respondents in 2023 and 21.42% in 2026, while personal loans were used by only 11.90% and 13.45%, respectively.

Taken together, these findings paint an important picture. For a substantial number of consumers, Consumer Legal Funding is not simply one financial option among many. More than four in ten respondents in the 2026 survey reported using none of the listed alternatives before turning to Consumer Legal Funding, while many others had relied on family or friends rather than traditional financial products.

That makes access to Consumer Legal Funding particularly important. When someone has been injured, is unable to work, and is struggling to pay rent, utilities, food, or transportation expenses, there may be very few realistic places to turn for financial assistance while a legal claim remains pending.

"Thank you for helping me when everyone else turned me away."

This is an important consideration for policymakers. Restrictions that significantly reduce access to Consumer Legal Funding do not create new financial alternatives for these consumers. They simply risk removing an option that many consumers are using at a time when their other choices appear limited.

The underlying financial need remains. The question is whether consumers will continue to have access to a product that can help them meet that need while they wait for their legal claim to be resolved.

Consumers Continue to Say They Would Use It Again

Perhaps the clearest measure of consumer satisfaction and the value consumers place on the product is what they say they would do if faced with the same need again.

The results are significant not simply because they are high, but because they are remarkably consistent.

In 2023, 91.08% of respondents said they would use Consumer Legal Funding again if needed.

Three years later, 90.70% said the same thing.

That is a difference of only 0.38 percentage points between two separate surveys. Recommendation rates were similarly strong, with 89.43% in 2023 and 87.35% in 2026 saying they would recommend their funding company.

Those numbers deserve a prominent place in the public discussion about Consumer Legal Funding.

A single survey showing that more than nine out of ten consumers would use the product again would be noteworthy. Two separate surveys, conducted three years apart among different groups of consumers, producing virtually identical results, are even more compelling.

91.08% in 2023. 90.70% in 2026.

More than nine out of ten consumers in both surveys said they would choose Consumer Legal Funding again if they needed it.

And nearly nine out of ten in both surveys said they would recommend their funding company.

These are not opinions from people observing the product from the outside. These are responses from consumers who actually used Consumer Legal Funding during a period of financial need.

"The process was easy, and the money was helpful. I would recommend this company to everyone who is in a situation like mine."

Their experiences deserve to be part of the policy discussion.

Hundreds of Consumers Across the Country Are Telling a Consistent Story

The strength of the ARC surveys is not based on a single percentage or a single group of respondents.

Hundreds of consumers participated in each survey, with respondents coming from across the country.

About 73% in both surveys struggled with rent or mortgage payments. Basic household necessities remained the dominant reason consumers needed financial assistance. A substantial percentage reported using none of the listed financial alternatives before obtaining Consumer Legal Funding. And more than 90% in both surveys said they would use the product again if needed.

That is not simply one survey producing a favorable statistic. It is a repeated consumer story.

Two Surveys, One Clear Message

One survey provides a snapshot. Two surveys conducted three years apart provide something more meaningful: the ability to determine whether the same basic patterns appear again.

ARC's 2023 and 2026 surveys independently tell essentially the same story. Consumers experience accidents, injuries, or other events that can disrupt employment. Their household expenses continue while their legal claims remain unresolved. Housing is consistently the leading financial pressure, with utilities and food also affecting significant majorities of respondents.

And after experiencing Consumer Legal Funding firsthand, more than 90% in both surveys said they would use it again if they needed it.

That repeated consumer response should matter to policymakers.

Consumer Legal Funding should be responsibly regulated, and strong consumer protections and meaningful industry standards are entirely compatible with preserving access. But regulation should begin with an understanding of why consumers need the product and what consumers themselves say about its value.

When policymakers consider laws or regulations that could significantly restrict Consumer Legal Funding, they should also consider what happens to the consumer afterward.

The accident has not disappeared. The pending legal claim has not suddenly been resolved. The rent has not gone away. Neither have the utility bill, grocery bill, car payment, or other everyday household obligations.

The most important voices in this debate should include the people who have actually faced that difficult period and used the product.

Across two surveys, three years, and hundreds of consumers from across the country, the message is remarkably consistent:

The need is real. The product serves an important purpose. And overwhelmingly, consumers say they would use it again.

A version of this commentary first appeared in The National Law Review.

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."