Consumer legal funding has increasingly become a focal point for legislative scrutiny, with some policymakers framing new regulations as necessary consumer protections. A recent commentary argues that one such proposal—imposing joint and several liability on consumer legal funding companies—may do more harm than good, ultimately restricting access to justice for the very consumers these laws are meant to protect.

At its core, the debate centers on whether funders should be held jointly and severally liable alongside plaintiffs for litigation outcomes or related conduct. Proponents of these measures suggest that attaching liability to funders would deter abusive practices and align incentives across the litigation ecosystem. Critics, however, warn that this approach misunderstands the role of consumer legal funding and risks destabilizing a market that many injured or financially vulnerable plaintiffs rely upon to pursue meritorious claims.

An article in National Law Review states that joint and several liability provisions would dramatically alter the risk profile for consumer legal funding companies, forcing them to assume exposure far beyond their contractual role as non-recourse financiers. The piece argues that such liability would likely lead to higher costs of capital, reduced availability of funding, or a wholesale exit of providers from certain jurisdictions. In turn, consumers who lack the means to sustain themselves financially during prolonged litigation could be left without viable alternatives, effectively pressuring them into premature or undervalued settlements.

The article also challenges the notion that consumer legal funding requires punitive regulation, pointing to existing disclosure requirements, contract oversight, and state-level consumer protection laws that already govern the industry. By layering on joint liability, legislators may unintentionally undermine these frameworks and introduce uncertainty that benefits defendants more than consumers. The author further notes that similar liability concepts are generally absent from other forms of non-recourse financing, raising questions about why legal funding is being singled out.