In a climate where “America First” policies have gained traction, Georgia’s proposed Senate Bill 69 seeks to restrict foreign investment—specifically in litigation funding businesses. While proponents argue these measures are necessary for national security and financial integrity, the bill is built on a false equivalence: that all litigation funding is the same.

It’s not. And that distinction matters.

Commercial vs. Consumer Litigation Funding: Two Different Worlds

Commercial litigation funding involves large-scale, high-stakes business disputes—think patent infringement, antitrust, and complex corporate litigation. Investors in this space, often global firms or hedge funds, may commit millions to a single case in exchange for a share of a potential judgment. These entities may be foreign-backed and, in some cases, could exert influence over legal strategy depending on their terms.

Consumer legal funding, by contrast, provides small, non-recourse cash advances—typically around $2,000—to personal injury plaintiffs who are unable to work and struggling to pay rent, buy groceries, or cover medical bills while they await settlement. These funds never pay legal fees, never influence legal decisions, and exist solely to help people survive long enough to receive the justice they deserve.

SB 69 treats both types of funding as one and the same. That’s a critical—and costly—mistake.

What Georgia’s SB 69 Proposes

SB 69 aims to curb foreign investment in litigation funding, citing concerns over national security and outside financial influence on U.S. legal proceedings. Specifically, the bill restricts entities with foreign affiliations from financing legal claims in Georgia. Lawmakers supporting the measure argue this will prevent geopolitical adversaries from gaining influence through the court system.

But here’s the real issue: consumer legal funders aren’t doing that—and have never been. There’s no evidence that a single consumer advance has led to foreign control of a U.S. lawsuit. In short, they’re solving the wrong problem in the wrong place.

Misplaced Fears and Real-World Consequences

It’s true that the U.S. Department of Justice has flagged concerns about foreign entities funding patent litigation to access proprietary tech. That’s a commercial litigation issue, and if regulation is warranted in that space, it should be tailored accordingly.

But applying those same fears to consumer legal funding misses the mark entirely. These advances:

• Are non-recourse, which means they are only repaid if the plaintiff wins
• Average around $2,000
• Come with no influence over legal strategy, as is clearly stated in our contracts:

“GAIN SHALL HAVE NO RIGHT TO AND WILL NOT MAKE ANY DECISIONS WITH RESPECT TO THE CONDUCT OF THE UNDERLYING LEGAL CLAIM OR ANY SETTLEMENT OR RESOLUTION THEREOF…”

Consumer legal funding is not a back door for espionage or manipulation—it’s a lifeline for injured individuals navigating a legal system that moves slowly and costs dearly.

Will SB 69 Scare Away Smart Capital?

Foreign direct investment (FDI) has long been a catalyst for U.S. economic growth. In Georgia, foreign-owned businesses employ hundreds of thousands of people. From manufacturing to tech, global capital is part of the engine that drives state and national prosperity.

SB 69 risks setting a dangerous precedent. If lawmakers begin targeting entire sectors for exclusion simply because foreign capital is involved, what’s next? Real estate? Healthcare? AI?

And even within litigation funding, if foreign investors walk away—spooked by blanket bans and ambiguous regulation—the real losers won’t be hedge funds. They’ll be Georgia’s plaintiffs: those unable to access the small but essential advances that allow them to stay in their homes and keep food on the table while they wait for justice.

The Bigger Picture

Regulation, when thoughtful, can be a good thing. But SB 69 overreaches. It conflates two distinct industries—commercial and consumer litigation funding—and uses one’s risks to justify the other’s restrictions. That’s not policy. That’s panic.

Georgia has an opportunity to lead—not just in economic competitiveness, but in showing how to regulate smartly and fairly. That begins by acknowledging the distinction between funding million-dollar corporate lawsuits and helping everyday people stay afloat.

Final Thoughts

SB 69 represents more than just a legal funding issue. It’s a case study in what happens when critical nuance is lost in the noise.

Without clear distinctions and a willingness to regulate with precision, Georgia could unintentionally send a chilling message to global investors, disrupt access to justice for its residents, and weaken the very economic engine it’s trying to protect.

The real question isn’t whether to guard against foreign influence—it’s whether we can do so without collapsing an entirely separate, consumer-focused industry that exists to help injured people survive the legal process.