A bicameral bill introduced in Congress would bar liability claims premised on vehicle safety standards stricter than those set by federal regulators, and has drawn support from a trucking and insurance coalition that counts third-party litigation funding among the pressures driving up its costs.

As reported by Transport Topics, the Uniform Vehicle Safety Standards Act was introduced on August 6 by Rep. Mike Flood of Nebraska, joined by Reps. David Rouzer, Jay Obernolte and Jake Ellzey, with a Senate companion from Sens. Deb Fischer and Cynthia Lummis. The measure would amend Title 49 of the U.S. Code to prohibit common law claims alleging that a vehicle should have met standards exceeding those established by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.

"In recent years, we've seen a sharp rise in lawsuits awarding damages based on state standards instead of the federal safety standards trucking companies are already required to meet," Flood said. Alex Rosen of the American Trucking Associations argued that where NHTSA has determined a standard strikes the right balance, "that expert determination should carry greater weight than hindsight judgments."

The bill itself contains no litigation funding provisions. Funding enters through the coalition assembled behind it, which includes the American Property Casualty Insurance Association and the National Association of Mutual Insurance Companies alongside nine trucking organizations and Werner Enterprises. Research from the American Transportation Research Institute cited in the piece identifies third-party litigation funding and staged accidents as evolving legal threats to carriers, and links excessive litigation to insurance premiums that have climbed 36% over eight years.

For funders, the significance is positional rather than legal. The trucking sector has become one of the more organized constituencies pressing for disclosure and restriction at the state level, and preemption bills of this kind widen the front without naming the industry directly.

A guest column published this week makes a right-of-center case against pending federal restrictions on third-party litigation funding, arguing that the measures would strip conservative activists and small business owners of the capital they need to litigate against better-resourced opponents.

Writing in The State Journal, Drew Johnson takes aim at the Protecting Our Courts From Foreign Manipulation Act, led by Rep. Ben Cline of Virginia, and at Senator Thom Tillis's proposal to impose a punitive tax on litigation funding proceeds. Johnson is a senior fellow at the National Center for Public Policy Research and the 2026 Republican nominee for Nevada State Treasurer.

His central argument is that the bill's stated purpose, preventing foreign governments from bankrolling harassment suits, is already served by existing mechanisms including CFIUS review and judicial discretion, leaving the new disclosure requirements to do work their sponsors did not intend. Broad disclosure obligations, he contends, would deter funders from backing cases at all, and the resulting shortfall would fall hardest on plaintiffs without institutional balance sheets behind them.

Johnson illustrates the point with Jack Phillips, the Colorado baker who lost an estimated 40% of his income during years of litigation before prevailing at the Supreme Court with backing from Alliance Defending Freedom. Absent outside support, he writes, Phillips "could have easily been forced to surrender."

The column is notable less for its policy analysis than for its author. Litigation funding restrictions have advanced largely on Republican votes, and the industry's defenders have generally come from the plaintiffs' bar. Johnson's framing, that citizens facing wealthy opponents should not be forced to fight alone, is an attempt to contest that ground.