Trending Now
  • Fenchurch Legal Launches Secured Litigation Funding Strategy for Fixed-Income Investors
Commercial Deals

Multibillion Pound Claim Filed Against Sony Group

A claim against Sony Group was filed on 19 August 2022 in the UK’s Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT). The claim is being brought on behalf of UK-based PlayStation users who have purchased digital games and/or add-on content from the PlayStation Store since 19 August 2016. The claim is being funded by Woodsford, the UK’s leading ESG, access to justice and litigation finance business.

It’s alleged that Sony is breaching UK and EU competition law by abusing its dominant position resulting in consumers paying inflated prices for digital PlayStation games and add-on content.

This standalone collective action is brought on behalf of an estimated 9 million potential class members. An application has been made to the CAT for a Collective Proceedings Order which if ordered will result in a single class representative representing all potential class members on an opt-out basis.

The proposed class representative is consumer champion Alex Neill, Chief Executive of Resolver.co.uk. Alex’s team, funded by Woodsford, includes the law firm Milberg London LLP, economics experts at Berkeley Research Group LLC and barristers from Monckton Chambers.

Woodsford’s Chief Executive Officer, Steven Friel, commented: “Woodsford’s ESG team is dedicated to holding big business to account when corporate wrongdoing causes loss to consumers and other stakeholders. We are proud to support Alex Neill’s case, helping deliver access to justice for millions of gamers. Our significant financial and professional resource is already backing UK class actions against train companies accused of overcharging, and shippers whose cartel behaviour is alleged to have inflated the price of cars. With the launch of this claim against Sony, and with more landmark cases being worked up, Woodsford is now clearly established as the most successful ESG and litigation finance business in this area of UK collective redress.”

Further information on the claim and updates on its progress can be found at www.playstationyouoweus.com.

About Woodsford

Founded in 2010 and with a presence in London, New York, Brisbane, Philadelphia and Minneapolis, Woodsford is a leading ESG, access to justice and litigation finance business.

Whether it is helping consumers achieve collective redress, ensuring that investors and universities are properly compensated when Big Tech infringes intellectual property rights, or helping shareholders in collaborative, escalated engagement up to and including litigation with listed companies, Woodsford is committed to ensuring the highest ESG standards while providing access to justice.

Working globally with many of the world’s leading law firms, our legal experience, investment, business and technical expertise, in tandem with our significant financial muscle, makes us a powerful partner and a formidable adversary.

Woodsford is a founder member of both the International Legal Finance Association (ILFA) and the Association of Litigation Funders of England & Wales (ALF), and a member of the International Corporate Governance Network.

Woodsford continues to grow, and we welcome approaches from experienced litigation lawyers and other professionals who are interested in joining our team.

For more information visit www.woodsford.com

Commercial

View All
Commercial Regulatory Issues

Oklahoma Moves to Restrict Foreign Litigation Funding, Cap Damages

By John Freund |

In a significant policy shift, Oklahoma has enacted legislation targeting foreign influence in its judicial system through third-party litigation funding. Signed into law by Governor Kevin Stitt, the two-pronged legislation not only prohibits foreign entities from funding lawsuits in the state but also imposes a $500,000 cap on non-economic damages in civil cases—excluding exceptions such as wrongful death. The new laws take effect November 1, 2025.

An article in The Journal Record notes that proponents of the legislation, including the Oklahoma Civil Justice Council and key Republican lawmakers, argue these measures are necessary to preserve the integrity of the state's courts and protect domestic businesses from what they view as undue interference. The foreign funding restriction applies to entities from countries identified as foreign adversaries by federal standards, including China and Russia.

Critics, however, contend that the laws may undermine access to justice, especially in complex or high-cost litigation where third-party funding can serve as a vital resource. The cap on non-economic damages, in particular, has drawn concern from trial lawyers who argue it may disproportionately impact vulnerable plaintiffs without sufficient financial means.

Oklahoma’s move aligns with a broader national trend of state-level scrutiny over third-party litigation funding. Lawmakers in several states have introduced or passed legislation to increase transparency, impose registration requirements, or limit funding sources.

For the legal funding industry, the Oklahoma law raises pressing questions about how funders will adapt to an increasingly fragmented regulatory landscape. It also underscores the growing political sensitivity around foreign capital in civil litigation—a trend that could prompt further regulatory action across other jurisdictions.

Commercial

Litigation Funding Isn’t an ‘Anti-Woke’ Weapon, Says Consumer Advocacy Group

By John Freund |

A new opinion piece pushes back against recent cultural and political rhetoric characterizing third-party litigation funding as a partisan instrument, arguing instead that it remains a neutral financial tool in the legal system.

An article in the Consumer Choice Center emphasizes that while some political actors and commentators have portrayed litigation funding as a means to challenge so-called “woke” corporations, such framing misconstrues the role and function of funders. According to the piece, litigation funding serves a straightforward purpose: to provide capital to litigants—be they individuals or entities—who lack the resources to pursue claims. The authors argue that this mechanism is neither inherently ideological nor driven by political outcomes.

The article calls for clearer regulatory standards and heightened transparency to avoid potential abuses and maintain public trust. It warns against allowing litigation finance to be co-opted by political narratives, which could derail substantive policy debates around disclosure, ethical boundaries, and market oversight.

In a landscape increasingly shaped by culture wars, this intervention underscores a foundational point: litigation finance is not a proxy battlefield for partisan interests, but a tool with the potential to improve access to justice—provided it is governed with clarity and care.

Commercial

WSJ Editorial Calls for Ending Tax Breaks for Foreign Litigation Funders

By John Freund |

A recent opinion piece in The Wall Street Journal advocates for closing tax loopholes that allow foreign investment funds to avoid U.S. taxes on profits earned from financing lawsuits against American companies. The editorial argues that the current tax code inadvertently incentivizes predatory litigation funding practices by exempting foreign investors from taxation on lawsuit proceeds, thereby disadvantaging domestic businesses.

The article contends that this exemption creates an uneven playing field, enabling foreign entities to profit from U.S. legal actions without contributing to the tax base. It suggests that such practices not only strain the judicial system but also impose additional burdens on American companies, which must defend against potentially frivolous or opportunistic lawsuits financed by these untaxed foreign investments.

The editorial calls on Congress to reevaluate and amend the tax code to eliminate these exemptions. By doing so, it aims to deter exploitative litigation funding and ensure that all investors, regardless of nationality, are subject to the same tax obligations when profiting from the U.S. legal system.

The piece emphasizes that such reforms would promote fairness and protect domestic businesses from undue legal and financial pressures.