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.
