This bill creates a new statutory framework in chapter 69, Florida Statutes, governing “litigation financing,” which is defined as third-party funding of legal claims in exchange for a contingent return tied to the outcome of the case or a related portfolio. The bill excludes several arrangements from that definition, including ordinary contingency-fee representation, attorney advances of litigation costs made under professional conduct rules, certain insurer and lender arrangements, and some nonprofit pro bono funding.
The bill imposes a series of restrictions and disclosure requirements on litigation financiers, attorneys, and parties who use such financing. It bars financiers from controlling litigation strategy, selecting counsel, or influencing settlement; prohibits referral fees and assignment or securitization of the financing agreement; and limits the financier’s share of proceeds. It also requires disclosure of litigation financing agreements to clients, opposing parties, tribunals, insurers with indemnity obligations, and state agencies, with special disclosure rules for class actions, consolidated cases, and any foreign person, foreign principal, or sovereign wealth fund involved. The bill makes these disclosures ongoing, allows limited redaction of dollar amounts subject to court review, and authorizes discovery of the existence and identities of financing parties.
The bill also requires litigation financiers to indemnify plaintiffs and their counsel against adverse costs, attorney fees, damages, and sanctions, except where those losses result from intentional misconduct by the plaintiffs or their counsel. Any agreement made in violation of the act would be void and unenforceable, and violations of the control and indemnification provisions are treated as deceptive and unfair trade practices under Florida’s consumer protection law. Courts, agencies, and tribunals may also impose fines or other sanctions for disclosure violations.
The bill’s impact on state law would be significant because it creates a new regulatory regime for third-party litigation funding and applies it retroactively to disclosure obligations for cases pending on or after July 1, 2025, while otherwise applying to agreements entered into on or after that date. It would affect plaintiffs, class counsel, defense parties, insurers, litigation funders, and any foreign-linked funding sources, and it would expand the role of courts and state agencies in policing funding arrangements. It also adds a national-security and foreign-ownership disclosure component that could reach proprietary information and foreign investment structures tied to litigation.
Because no committee transcripts or votes were provided, there is no recorded legislative debate or vote history to assess sentiment directly. Based on the bill text alone, the measure appears designed to increase transparency and limit outside influence in litigation financing, suggesting support from proponents concerned about conflicts of interest, foreign involvement, and litigation control. Potential opposition would likely come from litigation funders, some plaintiffs’ attorneys, and others who may view the disclosure, indemnity, and anti-assignment provisions as burdensome or as restricting access to capital for meritorious claims.
The bill would create Part II of chapter 69, Florida Statutes, establishing new rules for litigation financing agreements, including mandatory disclosures, limits on financier conduct, indemnification requirements, and enforcement mechanisms. It would make noncompliant agreements void and unenforceable, treat certain violations as deceptive and unfair trade practices under chapter 501, and authorize sanctions for disclosure violations. The act would apply to agreements entered into on or after July 1, 2025, with disclosure obligations reaching pending cases as of that date.
No committee transcripts or vote records were provided, so there is no direct evidence of legislative sentiment from debate or roll call. The bill’s structure suggests a policy goal of transparency, conflict-of-interest prevention, and national-security screening in litigation funding, which would likely appeal to supporters of regulation and disclosure. At the same time, the breadth of the disclosure rules, the indemnification mandate, and the restrictions on financier conduct suggest likely concern from litigation finance industry participants and some plaintiff-side advocates.
The main points of contention are likely to be the bill’s mandatory disclosure regime, especially the requirement to reveal foreign persons, foreign principals, sovereign wealth funds, and related proprietary or national-security information; the prohibition on financiers influencing litigation strategy or settlement; and the requirement that financiers indemnify plaintiffs and their counsel for adverse costs and sanctions. Litigation financiers and some attorneys may argue these provisions are overly restrictive or could chill funding for plaintiffs, while supporters are likely to emphasize transparency, prevention of hidden control over lawsuits, and protection against foreign influence.