If you’ve never heard of litigation funding, you’re not alone. It means an outside company gives money tied to a lawsuit and gets paid back from any settlement or verdict. Georgia’s SB 69 now regulates that industry more closely, with new registration and disclosure rules.
Why litigation funding exists
Litigation funding grew because lawsuits are expensive and slow. A seriously injured plaintiff may need money for rent or basic bills while a case is pending. A funder steps in with cash now, and if the plaintiff recovers later, the funder takes an agreed share of the recovery.
There is a big difference between that kind of funding and a traditional loan. In most arrangements, the plaintiff owes nothing if the case fails, because the advance is non-recourse. That makes it attractive to people who are injured, out of work, and waiting on a settlement.
What SB 69 changed
SB 69 did not ban litigation funding in Georgia, but it put guardrails around it. The law requires litigation financiers to register with the Georgia Department of Banking and Finance. It also makes the existence and terms of many funding arrangements discoverable in the underlying lawsuit.
The law also targets foreign influence. Entities tied to foreign governments, foreign adversaries, or certain foreign principals are blocked from participating in Georgia litigation financing. The policy goal is transparency: courts and litigants should know who is bankrolling a case.
What funders can and cannot do
One of SB 69’s core ideas is that a funder is a financier, not a co-lawyer. The funder cannot direct settlement decisions, choose counsel, pick experts, or run the case. Those choices belong to the plaintiff and the plaintiff’s attorney.
How disclosure works
A major change under SB 69 is transparency. Litigation funding agreements must be written, and the terms may be discoverable if the amount funded is $25,000 or more. In practice, that means defendants can ask what the agreement says and who the funder is.
Why plaintiffs use funding
For injured people, litigation funding can be a lifeline. A plaintiff who is out of work and waiting on a case may need money for groceries, utilities, rent, or transportation. A small advance can buy time and reduce the pressure to settle too early just to survive financially.
Why defendants care
Defendants and insurers care about litigation funding because it can change the pressure inside a case. If a plaintiff has borrowed against the future recovery, the defense may argue that the plaintiff has less flexibility to settle. Defendants also want to know whether a third party has a financial interest that might affect strategy.
That basic structure matters because litigation funding is controversial. Supporters say it helps people who would otherwise be forced into cheap settlements. Critics say it can increase costs and give outsiders too much influence over lawsuits.
The law tries to split that difference. It leaves room for funding, but it makes the funding visible and keeps the funder from calling the shots. For many lawyers, that is the real point of the statute.
In practical terms, the safest approach is simple. Treat any funding agreement as something that can become part of the case, not something that stays private forever. That means checking the paperwork early, before the arrangement becomes a discovery fight.
One practical example helps. If a plaintiff receives a funding advance while a case is still open, the defense may later ask who provided the money, what terms were signed, and whether anyone outside the case has a financial stake. That is exactly the kind of question SB 69 is designed to bring into the open.
That does not mean every funding deal is suspect. It does mean the deal should be handled with care from the start, because the legal risks are no longer hypothetical once discovery begins.
What this means in real life
If you are an injury plaintiff in Georgia, SB 69 means you should assume that any outside funding may be visible to the other side. That does not automatically make the funding bad or invalid, but it does mean the arrangement can become part of the litigation itself.
If you are a lawyer, the practical lesson is to vet any funding carefully. You need to know whether the funder is properly registered and whether the agreement has the required disclosures. A sloppy funding arrangement can create side issues that have nothing to do with the merits of the injury case.
The bottom line
SB 69 did not shut down litigation funding in Georgia, but it changed the rules of the road. Funders now have to register, disclose more, and stay out of the driver’s seat. Plaintiffs can still use funding in the right cases, but the arrangement is now more transparent and more closely regulated.
For injured people, the big takeaway is simple: if someone else is helping finance your lawsuit, that help may come with paperwork and scrutiny.
Disclaimer
The information provided on this blog is for general informational purposes only and is
not intended to serve as legal advice. While I am a paralegal, I am not a licensed attorney, and the content shared here should not be construed as such.
No attorney-client relationship is formed through the use of this blog or by any communication with me. For specific legal advice tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney who is licensed to practice law in your jurisdiction. Laws change frequently and may vary by county or city; this blog reflects a general understanding of Georgia law as of the date of publication.
I strive to ensure that the information presented is accurate and up-to-date; however, I make no representations or warranties regarding the completeness, accuracy, reliability, suitability, or availability of any information contained on this blog. Any reliance you place on such information is strictly at your own risk.
Thank you for visiting my blog, and please feel free to reach out with any questions or comments!