SB 69, the “Georgia Courts Access and Consumer Protection Act,” creates a new regulatory framework for third-party litigation financing in Georgia. It requires litigation financiers to register with the Department of Banking and Finance, disclose ownership and control information, identify any foreign affiliations, update registrations when information changes, and accept public disclosure of filed materials. The bill also bars registration or operation by financiers affiliated with foreign governments, foreign adversaries, foreign principals, or sovereign wealth funds, and authorizes the department to deny registrations based on noncompliance or certain felony convictions.
The bill imposes extensive conduct rules on litigation financiers. It prohibits financiers from controlling litigation strategy, paying referral fees to attorneys or others, offering legal advice, assigning or securitizing agreements in most cases, or reporting consumers to credit bureaus when recovery is insufficient. It also requires written contracts with specific disclosures, a five-business-day cancellation right, limits on the financier’s recovery, and acknowledgments by consumers and, in some cases, their lawyers. Certain arrangements are exempted, including contingency-fee legal representation, ordinary loans not tied to litigation proceeds, some nonprofit funding, and some business-related financing that does not take a contingent interest in litigation outcomes.
The bill also makes violations serious: a willful violation is a felony, and any violation renders the litigation financing agreement void and unenforceable by the financier. It authorizes the Attorney General and local prosecutors to bring criminal proceedings and allows the Department of Banking and Finance to participate in a multistate licensing and registry system. In addition, SB 69 expands civil discovery to allow parties to obtain the existence and terms of litigation financing agreements in pending cases, though that information is not automatically admissible at trial.
A separate section of the bill changes Georgia’s seat belt evidence rules. It revises Code Section 40-8-76.1 to address the admissibility and effect of evidence that a vehicle occupant failed to wear a seat belt, generally limiting its use in civil actions and insurance decisions, while preserving court discretion under evidence rules. This section applies only to causes of action filed on or after the effective date.
The overall sentiment reflected in the voting history is strongly supportive but not unanimous. The bill passed the Senate 52-0, passed the House 98-69, and later received additional approval on substitute/amended versions, indicating broad Republican support and meaningful Democratic opposition in the House. The main points of contention appear to be the scope of regulation over litigation finance, the foreign-ownership restrictions, the felony penalty, and the bill’s broader effect on access to capital for plaintiffs and on attorney-client litigation arrangements.
SB 69 adds a new chapter to Title 7 regulating third-party litigation financing and amends Title 9 discovery rules and Title 40 seat belt evidence provisions. It creates licensing, disclosure, contract, enforcement, and criminal penalty requirements for litigation financiers, while also making litigation financing agreements discoverable in civil cases and limiting how seat belt nonuse may be used in negligence and insurance disputes. The bill affects litigation funders, consumers/plaintiffs, attorneys, the Department of Banking and Finance, prosecutors, and civil litigants in Georgia.
The bill appears to have been framed as a consumer-protection and court-access measure, but the voting pattern shows mixed sentiment overall. It passed the Senate unanimously, suggesting strong support in that chamber, while the House vote was narrower and split, indicating more debate and resistance there. The amended versions also passed, which suggests the final package retained enough support to move forward despite concerns.
The most notable contention points are the bill’s restrictions on foreign-affiliated litigation financiers, its felony penalty for willful violations, and its broad regulatory reach over private litigation funding contracts. Opponents likely focused on whether the bill could limit access to financing for injured plaintiffs or interfere with attorney-client relationships, while supporters likely emphasized transparency, consumer protection, and preventing outside influence over lawsuits. The seat belt evidence changes may also have drawn attention because they alter civil liability and insurance-related litigation rules.