Third-Party Litigation Financing

Third-party litigation financing (TPLF), or lawsuit funding, is the practice of investors buying an interest in the outcome of a lawsuit, and has become a multi-billion-dollar industry.

The Problem

Third party litigation financing raises ethical concerns by allowing funders to interfere with litigation decisions, which compromises attorney independence and raises costs for litigants.

Economic impacts include:

Hidden Money Pours Into Litigation: Third Party Litigation Funding

“Civil litigation provides a means of resolving disputes between parties, those named in a lawsuit as plaintiffs and defendants. Common law doctrines traditionally prohibited ‘strangers’ to a lawsuit from meddling in litigation or having a financial interest in the outcome due to the potential for litigation abuse. As those principles have fallen by the wayside, outside investors have poured money into civil litigation.”

Read more in the Judicial Hellholes® “Closer Looks” section on third-party litigation financing.

ATRA’s Position

If third party litigation financing continues, regulations should be put in place that increase transparency for litigants and maintains the integrity of the judicial system.

Search Through ATRA Reforms

Search through all of ATRA's reforms around Third-Party Litigation Financing

No related legislation or reform items to display.



Third-Party Litigation Financing News and Press

Explore ATRA's most recent press releases and blogs around Third-Party Litigation Financing

Washington State Lawmakers Should Shine a Light on Secret Lawsuit Investors

This op-ed was published by DC Journal State lawmakers in Washingto...

State Tort Laws Negatively Impacting Economies Outlined for DOJ in ATRA Letter

Today, the American Tort Reform Association provided the Department of Jus...

Montana Emerges As National Tort Reform Leader in ATRA’s 2025 “Legislative HeatCheck”

Today, the American Tort Reform Association named Montana a 2025 “Tort Ref...

Search Resources

Search through all of ATRA's Amicus Briefs, Reports, and Other Resources around Third-Party Litigation Financing
Search All
States
Status
Post Types
Date
Exxon Mobil v. New Hampshire
(U.S. Supreme Court, filed February 22, 2016): Arguing that Exxon’s liability for selling MTBE-Oxygenated gasoline should be preempted by the federal ...
New Hampshire
  • Court Denied Cert iconCourt Denied Cert
Konstantin v. 630 Third Avenue Associates, et. al.
(New York, filed in February of 2016): Arguing that consolidation of asbestos-based personal injury actions for trial violates CPLR 602(a) where the a...
New York
  • Court Ruled Against ATRA's Position iconCourt Ruled Against ATRA's Position
Certainteed Corporation v. Fletcher
(Ga., filed in March of 2016): Arguing that manufacturers should not be held liable for negligence in asbestos cases involving take-home exposure. ...
Georgia
  • Court Ruled in Favor of ATRA's Position iconCourt Ruled in Favor of ATRA's Position
Microsoft v. Baker
(U.S., filed March 18, 2016): Arguing that a federal court of appeals lacks jurisdiction to review an order denying class certification after the plai...
SCOTUS
  • Court Ruled in Favor of ATRA's Position iconCourt Ruled in Favor of ATRA's Position
In Re Lipitor
(3rd Cir., filed March 28, 2016): Arguing that antitrust cases require pleadings to include sufficient facts to establish a plausible foundation for t...
3rd Circuit
  • Court Ruled Against ATRA's Position iconCourt Ruled Against ATRA's Position
In Re Trinity Industries Inc.
(5th Cir., filed March 28, 2016): Arguing that if allowed to stand, the decision below would produce deep regulatory uncertainty for manufacturers and...
5th Circuit
  • Court Ruled in Favor of ATRA's Position iconCourt Ruled in Favor of ATRA's Position
Lindenberg v. Jackson National Life Insurance Co.
(Tenn., filed April 15, 2016): Arguing that Tennessee’s statutory limit on punitive damages is constitutional.  The statutory limit does not infringe ...
Tennessee
  • Court Ruled in Favor of ATRA's Position iconCourt Ruled in Favor of ATRA's Position
Graham v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co.
(11th Cir., filed April 22, 2016).  Arguing that reliance on general, non-specific verdicts to foreclose litigation of highly specific issues that may...
11th Circuit
  • Court Ruled Against ATRA's Position iconCourt Ruled Against ATRA's Position
Davis v. Honeywell Inc.
(Cal., filed April 29, 2016): Arguing that the court should clarify what constitutes a “substantial factor” in contributing to the risk of developing ...
California
  • Court Denied Cert iconCourt Denied Cert
Beason v. I.E. Miller
(Ok., filed June 6, 2016): Arguing that the statutory limits on noneconomic damages are constitutional and does not violate a person’s right to a jury...
Oklahoma
  • Court Ruled Against ATRA's Position iconCourt Ruled Against ATRA's Position



The American Tort Reform Association is the nation’s first organization dedicated exclusively to reforming the civil justice system through education and legislative enactment.

To receive occasional updates from ATRA, enter your email address:
By subscribing, you agree to our Privacy Policy and consent to receive updates.
© 2026 ATRA. All rights reserved.