Senate Bill 69 (signed April 21, 2025) introduced Georgia’s first comprehensive statutory framework for third-party litigation funding (TPLF). The law requires litigation funders to register with the state, limits their involvement in legal strategy and decision-making, and makes litigation funding agreements subject to discovery by opposing parties. A litigation funder who provides $25,000 or more in funding may face joint and several liability for sanctions or costs imposed against the funded party or its legal representative. Most provisions of SB 69 took effect on January 1, 2026, though the provision making funding agreements discoverable applies to claims filed or contracts entered after the bill’s signing in April 2025. Most provisions of SB 69 took effect on January 1, 2026, and practitioners should verify the current status of registration requirements and enforcement mechanisms with the Georgia Secretary of State’s office. Litigation funders providing $25,000 or more in funding face joint and several liability for sanctions or costs imposed against the funded party, creating meaningful financial risk for funders and incentivizing them to monitor the quality and merit of the cases they fund. Registration with the state provides a public record of active litigation funders operating in Georgia. The law is designed to increase transparency about who is financially backing a lawsuit and to prevent outside investors from influencing litigation strategy to maximize their own returns at the expense of the plaintiff’s interests.
101.1. What is third-party litigation funding and how does it function in Georgia personal injury cases?
Third-party litigation funding occurs when an outside investor provides money to a plaintiff or plaintiff’s law firm in exchange for a portion of any future settlement or judgment. The arrangement allows plaintiffs who lack resources to pursue claims they otherwise could not afford. In personal injury cases, TPLF may cover living expenses during litigation, medical treatment costs, or litigation expenses such as expert fees. The funder has no formal role in the lawsuit but has a financial stake in the outcome, which creates potential incentive conflicts. Before SB 69, Georgia had no specific statutory framework regulating these arrangements.
101.2. What registration requirements does SB 69 impose on litigation funders operating in Georgia?
SB 69 requires litigation funders to register with the state before providing funding in Georgia cases. The registration requirement applies to entities that provide funding in exchange for a contingent financial interest in the outcome of litigation. The registration framework is intended to create accountability and allow the state to track which entities are financing lawsuits. Funders who fail to register may face penalties and may be barred from enforcing their funding agreements.
101.3. How does SB 69 limit a litigation funder’s involvement in legal strategy and case decisions?
SB 69 prohibits litigation funders from directing or controlling the legal strategy of the funded case. The funder cannot make decisions about whether to accept a settlement, which claims to pursue, or how to conduct the litigation. These decisions must remain with the plaintiff and their attorney. The restriction addresses concerns that outside investors with purely financial motivations might pressure plaintiffs to reject reasonable settlements in pursuit of larger verdicts, or might influence case strategy to maximize the funder’s return rather than the plaintiff’s best interest.
101.4. When and how are litigation funding agreements subject to discovery in Georgia?
Under SB 69, litigation funding agreements are subject to discovery by the opposing party. This means the defendant can request and obtain the terms of the funding arrangement, including the identity of the funder, the amount of funding provided, and the financial terms of the agreement. The discoverability provision applies to claims filed or funding contracts entered after April 2025. Making these agreements discoverable allows defendants and the court to evaluate whether the funding arrangement is influencing the litigation and to consider the funder’s involvement when assessing the case dynamics.
101.5. What liability exposure do litigation funders face under SB 69 for sanctions and costs?
A litigation funder that provides $25,000 or more in funding to a case may be held jointly and severally liable for any award of sanctions or costs against the funded party or its legal representative. This means that if the court sanctions a plaintiff or plaintiff’s attorney for frivolous claims, discovery abuse, or other misconduct, the funder can be held personally responsible for paying those sanctions. This provision is designed to discourage funders from backing meritless claims and to ensure that funders bear financial consequences when the litigation they fund results in sanctionable conduct.
101.6. How does SB 69 affect the plaintiff’s decision-making process about whether to accept litigation funding?
Plaintiffs considering litigation funding must now weigh the fact that their funding agreement will be disclosed to the opposing party. Defendants may use the existence of third-party funding to argue that the plaintiff is motivated by the funder’s financial interests rather than their own. The transparency requirement may discourage some plaintiffs from seeking funding or may lead funders to offer less favorable terms to compensate for the increased scrutiny. Plaintiffs should discuss the strategic implications of TPLF disclosure with their attorney before entering a funding agreement.
101.7. How does SB 69 interact with SB 68’s other tort reform provisions?
SB 69 complements SB 68’s broader tort reform package. SB 68 restricts damages evidence and trial procedures, while SB 69 addresses the financial infrastructure behind litigation. Together, they create a more regulated environment for personal injury litigation in Georgia. The discovery of funding agreements under SB 69 may provide defendants with additional information to use in settlement negotiations, and the sanctions liability may discourage speculative funding in marginal cases. For plaintiffs with meritorious claims, the transparency requirements should not prevent access to legitimate funding, but the terms and strategic implications of funded litigation have changed significantly.
101.8. What types of financial arrangements are excluded from SB 69’s definition of litigation funding?
SB 69 targets arrangements where a third party provides funding in exchange for a contingent financial interest in the litigation outcome. Traditional arrangements such as contingency fee agreements between attorney and client, insurance defense obligations, and loans secured by assets unrelated to litigation proceeds are generally not covered. The statute focuses on outside investors who take a financial position tied to the case result. However, the boundaries of what constitutes regulated litigation funding may be refined through judicial interpretation as cases arise under the new framework.
Disclaimer: This content is provided for informational and educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. No attorney-client relationship is formed by reading this material. Georgia law is subject to change through new legislation and court decisions. Always consult a qualified Georgia attorney for advice specific to your situation.