Trending Now
  • Burford Issues YPF Litigation Update Ahead of Pivotal Appeal Hearing
Consumer Special Features

Litigation Funding & The Invisible Gorilla

March 20, 2019

Litigation Funding & The Invisible Gorilla

The following post was submitted by Dean Lipson, Partner of Covered Bridge Capital. Ever hear of the psychological experiment known as the Invisible Gorilla?[1]  It goes like this: You’re asked to watch a brief video of a group of people moving randomly about in a pack. Several of these people are wearing white shirts and passing a ball amongst themselves. You’re asked to count the number of passes that occur. During the video, a person dressed as a gorilla enters the middle of the pack and, while facing the camera, thumps his chest for a few seconds then exits. The video ends and you’re asked to give the number of times the ball was passed. Most likely, you get that right. You’re then asked if you saw the gorilla. Huh, what gorilla? Yes, despite being on-screen for 9 seconds, half of all participants in the experiment never see the gorilla. Ever hear of the lawsuit captioned Avery vs. State Farm?[2] It goes like this: 20 years ago, an Illinois jury awarded $456 million to plaintiffs in an action against State Farm for its use of inferior car parts in car repairs; conduct which violated State Farm’s own insurance policies. Following a finding of fraud, an additional $730 million was added to the verdict bringing the total to roughly $1.2 billion. That amount was then reduced to $1.01 billion on appeal. State Farm wasn’t done though. It filed yet another appeal, this time with Illinois’ highest court, which granted State Farm the ultimate victory: The verdict was completely overturned. The events of Avery gave rise to a second suit against State Farm. In Hale vs. State Farm[3], the Avery plaintiffs alleged State Farm had not only orchestrated the recruitment of Lloyd Karmeier but also had secretly bankrolled his successful bid to be become an Illinois Supreme Court Justice in 2004[4]. Why? Because the Avery case was on appeal at that time and Justice Karmeier would now be available to influence its fate, which is precisely what happened.  Hale was filed in 2012 and it alleged the events leading up to, and following, the Karmeier election violated the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO). Again, the assertion here was that State Farm had organized and managed Karmeier’s campaign behind the scenes; that State Farm had covertly funneled millions of dollars to support the campaign through intermediary organizations over which State Farm had exerted considerable influence. Hale dragged on for 6 years before settling in 2018 for $250 million. The settlement was approved on the basis that only one of roughly 5 million plaintiffs objected. Well, with the claim now going into its 20th year and with individual net recoveries averaging less than $50, it’s a wonder anyone made the effort to object. It’s unfortunate Hale settled and the public was denied a look behind the curtain. Still, the circumstantial evidence is ample and more than enough to suggest the insurance giant pulled strings and levered its enormous influence to achieve that which it could not before a jury.  That’s a huge problem. But we have an even bigger problem: you and me. The State Farms of the world will always rent-seek and will always attempt to change the rules of the game to ensure their victory. We know this. The problem is that you and I aren’t doing enough to stop our country’s seemingly inexorable slide from democracy into corporatocracy?  We’ve become jaded, resigned, disenfranchised and, according to experts, blind; blind to what’s around us and blind to the very fact of our blindness.[5] That’s the takeaway from the Invisible Gorilla experiment. We come to litigation funding. The naysayers want to frame it as a problem but it is in fact a solution born of a problem. Corporate America continues to accumulate power while you and I continue to lose ours in this zero-sum battle. Isn’t that the real problem here? Come on, don’t you see the gorilla standing right in front of you thumping his chest? Dean Lipson Covered Bridge Capital, LLC “The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge” -Stephen Hawking — [1] www.theinvisiblegorilla.com [2] https://www.bloomberglaw.com/public/desktop/document/AveryvStateFarmMutAutoInsCo321IllApp3d269254IllDec194746NE2d1242A/1?1552679577 [3] https://www.bloomberglaw.com/public/desktop/document/HalevStateFarmMutAutoInsCoNo120660DRH2018BL462903SDIllDec132018Co?1552677329 [4] In the most expensive judicial election in United States history to that point, Justice Karmeier won the open seat. Ahem, he beat Appellate Judge Gordon Maag who wrote the Avery Appellate Court opinion against State Farm. [5] www.theinvisiblegorilla.com
Secure Your Funding Below
Secure Your Funding Sidebar

Consumer

View All
Consumer

Consumer Legal Funding: A Quiet Force Driving Innovation and Economic Welfare

By Eric Schuller |


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

This year’s Nobel Prize in Economics was awarded to Joel Mokyr, Philippe Aghion, and Peter Howitt for their groundbreaking work on how innovation fuels economic growth and human welfare. Their research, centered on endogenous growth and creative destruction, shows that societies advance when new ideas challenge old systems, replacing inefficiency with opportunity.

While their theories are often discussed in the context of technology or industrial progress, they also apply to financial and social innovations that empower people. One of the most quietly transformative examples is Consumer Legal Funding, a financial service that provides individuals with non-recourse funds while their legal claims are pending.

Viewed through the lens of these Nobel-winning theories, Consumer Legal Funding is far more than a niche product. It is an economic innovation that expands access, promotes fairness, and strengthens the very mechanisms that drive growth and human welfare.

1. Expanding Access to Justice: Empowering Consumers and Communities

Access to justice is both a moral and an economic imperative. When ordinary people cannot afford to pursue their legal rights because they cannot provide for their family, justice becomes a privilege for the wealthy, and the rule of law erodes. Consumer Legal Funding addresses this inequity directly by providing individuals with the funds they need to meet essential household expenses, rent, mortgage, groceries, utilities, childcare, while their cases make their way through the legal system.

Because these funds are non-recourse, consumers owe nothing if they do not win their case. That makes Consumer Legal Funding uniquely empowering: it provides stability and breathing room at the moment people need it most. In economic terms, this keeps families solvent, prevents forced settlements driven by financial desperation, and allows cases to be resolved based on fairness rather than necessity.

This democratization of access produces tangible economic benefits. Families stay in their homes, local businesses receive payments, and workers avoid the financial collapse that often accompanies serious injury or wrongful termination. In this way, Consumer Legal Funding strengthens both household balance sheets and community well-being, a microeconomic engine of stability and resilience.

2. Protecting Innovation and Small Business Resilience

The Nobel laureates emphasized that innovation flourishes when barriers to participation are lowered. The same principle applies to individuals and small businesses facing powerful opponents in legal disputes. Whether it is a local contractor owed payment, a delivery driver injured in an accident, or an inventor defending intellectual property, the ability to pursue justice can determine whether innovation thrives or collapses.

Consumer Legal Funding helps level this playing field. It gives consumers and small enterprises the financial capacity to sustain legitimate claims without surrendering early under financial pressure. By doing so, it safeguards the principles of accountability and fair dealing that encourage entrepreneurship and innovation.

Every successful resolution supported by Consumer Legal Funding reinforces market integrity: contracts are honored, negligence is deterred, and honest competition is rewarded. This is how progress occurs, when individuals and innovators have the means to defend their rights and contribute fully to economic life.

3. Fueling Creative Destruction: Redefining How Justice Is Financed

In economic terms, Consumer Legal Funding is itself an innovation that embodies creative destruction. For generations, access to justice was limited by the rigid structure of the legal system: lawyers and clients bore the full financial risk, and those without resources were often shut out entirely.

Consumer Legal Funding disrupts that outdated model. It introduces a private-market solution that operates independently of banks, insurers, or government assistance. By offering a new way for individuals to access funds tied to the potential outcome of their legal claim, it redefines the economics of fairness.

This shift mirrors other historic transformations, just as e-commerce reshaped retail or fintech expanded banking access, Consumer Legal Funding modernizes the intersection of law and finance. It replaces exclusivity with inclusion, dependency with empowerment, and uncertainty with choice. It is a vivid example of innovation that serves people first, not institutions.

4. Creating a New Financial Ecosystem: From Survival Tool to Economic Contributor

What began as a consumer support product has grown into a significant contributor to the broader economy. The Consumer Legal Funding industry now represents a direct economic driver, supporting thousands of jobs in finance, compliance, technology, and law.

“The Nobel laureates’ research ultimately centers on a profound idea: that human welfare grows when barriers to progress are removed and individuals are empowered to act. Consumer Legal Funding embodies that principle.”

Each transaction recirculates funds into the economy, paying landlords, medical providers, car repair shops, and countless other local businesses. In this way, Consumer Legal Funding acts as a stabilizer, smoothing the financial turbulence that can follow accidents, workplace injuries, or prolonged litigation.

Economists recognize that liquidity and timing matter. By bridging the gap between injury and recovery, between claim and resolution, Consumer Legal Funding enhances financial resilience and supports sustained consumer spending. This flow of capital at the household level contributes to macroeconomic stability and growth, precisely the kind of incremental innovation that Mokyr and Aghion identified as critical to human welfare.

5. Driving Institutional and Regulatory Innovation

Innovation does not occur in isolation; it prompts institutions to evolve. The rapid growth of Consumer Legal Funding has led policymakers, courts, and regulators to modernize legal and financial frameworks to reflect this new reality.

In states such as Utah, Georgia, Maine, Missouri, Ohio, Vermont and now California, legislatures have enacted laws that specifically recognize and regulate Consumer Legal Funding, ensuring transparency and consumer protection while preserving access. These frameworks establish clear rules, define the product as non-recourse, and distinguish it from loans or traditional litigation financing.

This legal clarity promotes responsible growth, protects consumers, and reinforces trust in the marketplace. It also represents exactly what Aghion and Howitt described: institutional adaptation as a driver of sustained innovation. As more jurisdictions follow suit, Consumer Legal Funding continues to model how private innovation and public policy can evolve together to serve the public good.

6. Consumer Legal Funding and the Economics of Human Welfare

The Nobel laureates’ research ultimately centers on a profound idea: that human welfare grows when barriers to progress are removed and individuals are empowered to act. Consumer Legal Funding embodies that principle.

By providing access to financial stability during legal uncertainty, it transforms moments of crisis into pathways toward justice and recovery. It strengthens families, reduces strain on public assistance systems, and promotes confidence in the fairness of the civil justice process.

At a macro level, the ripple effects are substantial. More equitable settlements mean greater accountability. Greater accountability deters harmful behavior. And when wrongdoing is reduced, the economy becomes more efficient and trustworthy — exactly the conditions required for sustained, inclusive growth.

7. A Call to Recognize Consumer Legal Funding as True Economic Innovation

Innovation is not defined solely by technology or machinery; it is measured by ideas that reshape systems and improve lives. Consumer Legal Funding achieves both. It is a financial innovation that serves social good, an economic tool that empowers individuals, and a policy model that encourages modern regulatory thinking.

The economists honored by this year’s Nobel Prize remind us that progress is built on the courage to rethink how systems work, and for whom they work. By that measure, Consumer Legal Funding deserves recognition not as a fringe practice, but as a quiet force of modern progress: Funding Lives, Not Litigation.

Announcements Consumer

The Alliance for Responsible Consumer Legal Funding Applauds Governor Newsom for Signing AB 931

By John Freund |

The Alliance for Responsible Consumer Legal Funding Applauds Governor Newsom for Signing AB 931, the California Consumer Legal Funding Act

The Alliance for Responsible Consumer Legal Funding (ARC) expressed its deep appreciation to Governor Gavin Newsom for signing Assembly Bill 931 -- The California Consumer Legal Funding Act -- into law. Authored by Assemblymember Ash Kalra (D–San Jose, 25th District), this landmark legislation establishes thoughtful and comprehensive regulation of Consumer Legal Funding in California—ensuring consumer protection, transparency, and access to financial stability while legal claims move through the judicial process.

The law, which takes effect January 1, 2026, provides consumers with much-needed financial support during the often lengthy resolution of their legal claims, helping them cover essential living expenses such as rent, mortgage payments, and utilities.

“This legislation represents a major step forward for California consumers,” said Eric Schuller, President of the Alliance for Responsible Consumer Legal Funding. “AB 931 strikes the right balance between protecting consumers and preserving access to a financial product that helps individuals stay afloat while they await justice. Consumer Legal Funding truly is about funding lives, not litigation.”
Key Consumer Protections Under AB 931

The California Consumer Legal Funding Act includes robust safeguards that prohibit funding companies from engaging in improper practices and mandate full transparency for consumers.

The Act Prohibits Consumer Legal Funding Companies from:

• Offering or colluding to provide funding as an inducement for a consumer to terminate their attorney and hire another.
• Colluding with or assisting an attorney in bringing fabricated or bad-faith claims.
• Paying or offering referral fees, commissions, or other forms of compensation to attorneys or law firms for consumer referrals.
• Accepting referral fees or other compensation from attorneys or law firms.
• Exercising any control or influence over the conduct or resolution of a legal claim.
• Referring consumers to specific attorneys or law firms (except via a bar association referral service).

The Act Requires Consumer Legal Funding Companies to:

• Provide clear, written contracts stating:
• The amount of funds provided to the consumer.
• A full itemization of any one-time charges.
• The maximum total amount remaining, including all fees and charges.
• A clear explanation of how and when charges accrue.
• A payment schedule showing all amounts due every 180 days, ensuring consumers understand their maximum financial obligation from the outset.
• Offer consumers a five-business-day right to cancel without penalty.
• Maintain no role in deciding whether, when, or for how much a legal claim is settled.

With AB 931, California joins a growing list of states that have enacted clear and fair regulation recognizing Consumer Legal Funding as a non-recourse, consumer-centered financial service—distinct from litigation financing and designed to help individuals meet their household needs while pursuing justice.

“We commend Assemblymember Kalra for his leadership and Governor Newsom for signing this important legislation,” said Schuller. “This act ensures that Californians who need temporary financial relief during their legal journey can do so safely, transparently, and responsibly.”

About the Alliance for Responsible Consumer Legal Funding (ARC)

The Alliance for Responsible Consumer Legal Funding (ARC) is a national association representing companies that provide Consumer Legal Funding, non-recourse financial assistance that helps consumers meet essential expenses while awaiting the resolution of a legal claim. ARC advocates for fair regulation, transparency, and consumer choice across the United States.

Consumer

Let’s Get the Definition Right: Litigation Financing is Not Consumer Legal Funding

By Eric Schuller |

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

Across the country, in both state capitols and Washington, D.C., policymakers and courts are giving increasing attention to the question of “litigation financing” and whether disclosure requirements should apply. At the heart of this debate is a push for transparency, who is funding lawsuits, what contracts exist, and what parties are behind those agreements.

While the intent is understandable, the challenge lies in the lack of a consistent and precise definition of what “litigation financing” actually is. Too often, broad definitions sweep in products and services that were never intended to fall under that category, most notably Consumer Legal Funding. This misclassification has the potential to cause confusion in the law and, more importantly, harm consumers who rely on these funds to stay afloat financially while pursuing justice through the legal system.

As Aristotle observed, “The beginning of wisdom is the definition of terms.” Without careful definitions, good policy becomes impossible.

The Distinction Between Litigation Financing and Consumer Legal Funding

The difference between litigation financing and Consumer Legal Funding is both simple and significant.

Litigation financing, sometimes referred to as third-party litigation funding (TPLF), typically involves an outside party providing monies to attorneys or to plaintiffs’ firms to pay for the costs of bringing or defending lawsuits. These funds are used to pay legal fees, expert witnesses, discovery expenses, and other litigation-related costs. The funders, in turn, often seek a portion of the litigation’s proceeds if the case is successful. In short, this type of financing directly supports the litigation itself.

Consumer Legal Funding, on the other hand, serves an entirely different purpose. In these transactions, monies are provided directly to consumers, not attorneys, for personal use while their legal claim is pending. These funds are not used to pay legal fees or case expenses. Instead, consumers typically use them for necessities such as rent, mortgage payments, groceries, utilities, childcare, or car payments. Funding companies are not influencing the litigation but rather ensuring that individuals have the financial stability to see their case through to its conclusion without being forced into a premature settlement simply because they cannot afford to wait.

This is why treating Consumer Legal Funding as though it were litigation financing is both inaccurate and potentially harmful.

Legislative and Judicial Recognition of the Difference

Several states have already recognized and codified this critical distinction. States including Arizona, Colorado, Louisiana, and Kansas have examined disclosure requirements for litigation financing and have made it clear that Consumer Legal Funding is not subject to those laws. Their statutes expressly define litigation financing in a way that excludes consumer-focused products.

Courts have also weighed in. In Arizona, for example, the state’s rules of civil procedure expressly carve out Consumer Legal Funding, recognizing that these transactions are unrelated to litigation financing and should not be treated as such. Likewise, when the Texas Supreme Court considered proposed rules surrounding litigation financing, the Court ultimately declined to proceed. While no new rule was adopted, the process made clear that Consumer Legal Funding was not intended to be part of the conversation.

These examples demonstrate that policymakers and jurists, when carefully considering the issue, have consistently drawn a line between products that finance lawsuits and those that help consumers meet basic living expenses.

Why the Distinction Matters

The consequences of failing to make this distinction are not abstract, they are very real for consumers. If disclosure statutes or procedural rules are written too broadly, they risk sweeping in Consumer Legal Funding.

Disclosure requirements are aimed at uncovering potential conflicts of interest, undue influence over litigation strategy, or foreign investment in lawsuits. None of these concerns are relevant to Consumer Legal Funding, which provides personal financial support and, by statute in many states, explicitly forbids funders from controlling litigation decisions.

As Albert Einstein noted, “If you can’t explain it simply, you don’t understand it well enough.” When the difference between litigation financing and Consumer Legal Funding is explained simply, the distinction becomes obvious. One finances lawsuits, the other helps consumers survive.

A Clear Request to Policymakers

For these reasons, we respectfully urge legislators and courts, when drafting legislation or procedural rules regarding “litigation financing,” to clearly define the scope of what is being regulated. If the issue is the funding of litigation, then the measures should address the financing of litigation itself, not the consumer who is simply trying to pay everyday bills and keep a roof over their head while awaiting the resolution of a legal claim.

Clarity in definitions is not a minor issue; it is essential to ensure that the right problems are addressed with the right solutions. Broad, vague definitions risk collateral damage, undermining access to justice and harming the very individuals the legal system is meant to protect. By contrast, carefully tailored definitions ensure transparency in litigation financing while preserving critical financial tools for consumers.

Finally

The debate around litigation financing disclosure is an important one, but it must be approached with precision. Litigation financing and Consumer Legal Funding are two fundamentally different products that serve very different purposes. One finances lawsuits, the other helps individuals survive while waiting for justice.

It is important to begin with a clear definition. As Mark Twain wisely noted, “The difference between the almost right word and the right word is really a large matter, ’tis the difference between the lightning bug and the lightning.” If legislators and courts wish to regulate litigation financing, they must do so with precision, ensuring clarity in the law while also preserving the essential role that Consumer Legal Funding plays in supporting individuals and families during some of the most difficult periods of their lives.