iFraud Deep Dive
Welcome to iFraud Deep Dive, an official podcast series of the iFraud Foundation — where we tackle the toughest issues facing the property and casualty industry in the fight against fraud.
Each episode features in-depth conversations breaking down complex issues into easily consumable information that we can all understand. We explore the fraud landscape, expose emerging threats, and highlight actionable solutions. From staged accidents and collusive networks to litigation abuse and regulatory gaps, we go beyond the headlines to bring you the insights that matter.
Whether you’re a carrier, broker, employer, attorney, or regulator, if you’re committed to protecting the integrity of our industry then this podcast is for you.
Subscribe now and join us in building a smarter, stronger, fraud-resilient future.
iFraud Deep Dive
S2 E49 North Carolina Bans Third Party Litigation Investment
Use Left/Right to seek, Home/End to jump to start or end. Hold shift to jump forward or backward.
North Carolina has become the first state in the nation to take the extraordinary step of banning third-party litigation funding outright.
Supporters say it's a landmark tort reform designed to protect the integrity of the civil justice system by removing outside investors whose financial interests can influence litigation strategy and settlement decisions. Critics argue litigation funding expands access to justice, but North Carolina lawmakers have concluded that the courtroom should not become an investment marketplace.
On this episode of Deep Dive, we examine what House Bill 315 actually does, why North Carolina chose to prohibit third-party litigation investment instead of simply regulating it, and what this historic decision could mean for insurers, businesses, attorneys, and the future of tort reform across the United States.
Let's Dive In!
Imagine um just for a second that you're sitting at your computer, you're sipping your morning coffee, and you're checking your retirement portfolio.
SPEAKER_00Like everyone does, yeah.
SPEAKER_01Right. You log in and you expect to see the usual suspects, you know? You've got their mutual funds, uh, maybe some shares in a big tech startup, a few bonds, just to play it safe.
SPEAKER_00Standard stuff.
SPEAKER_01Exactly. But what if, nested directly between your index funds, you saw that you had purchased a percentage of a complete stranger's lawsuit?
SPEAKER_00Aaron Ross Powell Oh, wow. I mean that sounds like the premise for some kind of uh science fiction novel about a hypercapitalist dystopia.
SPEAKER_01Aaron Powell It really does. But it's actually an entirely real financial practice, and um, it's the focal point of today's deep dive.
SPEAKER_00Yeah, it's fascinating.
SPEAKER_01Aaron Powell So today we're examining a very specific, heavily detailed press release. It's from June 22, 2026, and it was published by the North Carolina Chamber of Commerce. And the mission for us today is to really tear into this landmark piece of legislation called House Bill 315, because this bill just made North Carolina the very first state in the entire nation to completely ban a practice known as uh third-party litigation investment.
SPEAKER_00Yeah, and before we get into the actual mechanics of that ban, I think we should probably establish some clear context regarding the source material.
SPEAKER_01Definitely.
SPEAKER_00So this text comes directly from the North Carolina Chamber of Commerce, which, you know, is a pro-business organization. Right. And this press release really operates as a victory lap for them because they aggressively champion this bill. So I just want to say our goal today isn't to take a political side or like declare this legislation inherently good or bad.
SPEAKER_01Aaron Powell No, not at all. We're just acting as your guides to kind of an impartial exploration here. We're gonna look at the facts of the bill, understand the actual mechanics of this massive industry, and you know, carefully examine the specific arguments presented by the business community for why this practice needed to be outlawed.
SPEAKER_00Aaron Powell Yeah, because to really comprehend the prohibition, you first have to understand the underlying architecture of, well, what's actually being prohibited.
SPEAKER_01So let's break that down. Before we can evaluate why North Carolina lawmakers took this totally unprecedented step of banning the practice outright, we need to look under the hood of how it functions in the real world. Yeah. The source text refers to third-party litigation investment or TPLI as a rapidly expanding multi-billion dollar industry. Trevor Burrus, Jr.
SPEAKER_00Multi-billion.
SPEAKER_01Right, with a B. And the defining characteristic is basically a system where outside investors fund lawsuits in exchange for an equity stake in the outcome.
SPEAKER_00Aaron Powell Yeah. And the sheer scale of it is what really changes the conversation here. Because when the tech says multi-billion dollar industry, I mean we're not talking about a wealthy uncle paying a retainer for his nephew's personal injury lawyer.
SPEAKER_01Right, right.
SPEAKER_00This is a highly structured institutional financial market. You've got massive hedge funds and uh private equity firms pulling billions of dollars specifically to deploy into the civil justice system.
SPEAKER_01Aaron Powell Which is wild. I found myself trying to visualize this from like a layman's perspective. And the best analogy I could come up with is that it essentially functions like venture capitalism for courtrooms.
SPEAKER_00Oh, that's a good way to put it.
SPEAKER_01It's almost like pitching a lawsuit on the show, Shark Tank, you know? A plaintiff walks in and says, Hi, I'm seeking $500,000 to fund my intellectual property lawsuit against a massive corporation, and in exchange, I am offering you, the investors, a 20% cut of the final settlement or judgment.
SPEAKER_00Yeah. That is a highly accurate way to frame the initial transaction. But if we follow that logic a step further, you start to see why this fundamentally alters the uh the the DNA of a legal dispute.
SPEAKER_01How soon?
SPEAKER_00Well, traditionally, a civil lawsuit is a mechanism for resolving a specific grievance between two parties. Right. Right. Yeah. Party A feels wronged by party B and they seek restitution. But the moment TPLI enters the equation, the lawsuit is transformed into a tradable profit-generating asset for a completely detached entity.
SPEAKER_01Aaron Powell Oh, wow. So the lawsuit effectively becomes an investment vehicle. And from a Wall Street perspective, I assume lawsuits are incredibly attractive because they are what financial analysts call an uncorrelated asset.
SPEAKER_00Aaron Powell Yes, precisely.
SPEAKER_01Like if the stock market crashes tomorrow or if real estate values plummet, the potential payout of a patent infringement lawsuit remains completely unchanged. It operates in its own separate financial vacuum.
SPEAKER_00Aaron Powell And that is the exact mechanism driving the billions of dollars into this space. I mean, investors are desperate for returns that are totally insulated from broader economic downturns.
SPEAKER_01Aaron Powell Which I guess brings us to the friction. That transformation of the courtroom into a financial engine is what triggered this massive bipartisan pushback in North Carolina. Right. But I do want to push back on the text just a little bit here on behalf of the listener. Yeah. Because the press release outlines these really severe grievances from the NC Chamber and national business leaders. Trevor Burrus, Jr.
SPEAKER_00They do use some strong words.
SPEAKER_01Yeah. They use very loaded language. They call these outside funders shadowy investors who exercise undue influence. But let's play devil's advocate for a second. If a local business has a completely valid legal claim against a giant monopoly, but they simply can't afford to battle a corporate legal team for five years. Isn't an investor stepping in to foot the bill just leveling the playing field? Like, isn't it just a straightforward financial transaction to help someone access justice?
SPEAKER_00Yeah, so that is actually the most common defense of the industry. But the source text addresses that exact underlying philosophy through a quote from Chris Smith.
SPEAKER_01Okay.
SPEAKER_00He's a board member of the NC Chamber Legal Institute. And he argues that TPLI, quote, turns our courtrooms into financial investment markets.
SPEAKER_01Right.
SPEAKER_00So the chamber's position is that this is not an act of charity or mere access to justice. It's a financial transaction designed to maximize return on investment.
SPEAKER_01Which changes things.
SPEAKER_00Exactly, which ultimately misaligns the fundamental incentives of the legal system.
SPEAKER_01I understand the theory of misaligned incentives, but how does that actually manifest? Like how does an outside funder physically distort the justice system?
SPEAKER_00Aaron Powell Well, we have to look at the contractual levers this investors use. Because the investor isn't just, you know, handing over a blank check and hoping for the best.
SPEAKER_01Right. They're not just crossing their fingers.
SPEAKER_00No, these are sophisticated financial agreements.
SPEAKER_01Yeah.
SPEAKER_00Often the contracts include clauses that give the investor a voice in the strategic direction of the case.
SPEAKER_01Wow, really? Yeah.
SPEAKER_00And more importantly, they often dictate the payout structure using a sliding scale based on time and expenses.
SPEAKER_01Aaron Powell Wait, meaning the longer the case goes on or the more money the investor has to pump into it, the higher their percentage of the final cut becomes.
SPEAKER_00Precisely. Now, consider the ultimate goal of the justice system, right? Yeah. The fair administration of justice, which often involves settling a dispute early to avoid unnecessary pain, expense, and court time. Sure. If a plaintiff is offered a reasonable settlement a year into the case, they might just want to take it and move on with their life.
SPEAKER_01Yeah, I would.
SPEAKER_00Right. But the investor, who's holding the contractual purse strings, realizes that settling now only yields, say, a five percent return. But if they force the case to trial and rolled the dice in front of a jury, they might hit a massive jackpot and secured a 40% return.
SPEAKER_01Oh, I see. So the investor might utilize their contractual leverage to pressure the plaintiff into rejecting a perfectly reasonable settlement, thereby prolonging the litigation purely to chase a higher financial yield.
SPEAKER_00The source argues that when decision-making power shifts from a plaintiff seeking resolution to an invisible investor seeking maximum profit, the entire system distorts.
SPEAKER_01Yeah, that makes sense.
SPEAKER_00Cases that should settle take years. Frivolous cases that should be dropped are artificially kept alive just because an investor is willing to gamble on a small chance of a massive payout.
SPEAKER_01And that ties directly into why this effice you, the listener, even if you never interact with a hedge fund. If these mega lawsuits are artificially kept alive and dragged out for years because investors refuse to settle, court resources are drained. That means if you have a mundane everyday dispute, say a contractor takes your money and doesn't finish your roof, or you have a messy property line issue, your case gets backlogged for years. The local courts are simply choked by investor-driven litigation.
SPEAKER_00And the shadowy aspect the chamber emphasizes really comes into play here because there are very few transparency rules regarding these agreements.
SPEAKER_01Oh, right.
SPEAKER_00The opposing party, the jury, and frequently even the judge have no idea that a hedge fund is pulling the strings behind the scenes.
SPEAKER_01I can completely see why a chamber of commerce would view that kind of financial distortion as a localized threat that drives up the cost of doing business.
SPEAKER_00Yeah.
SPEAKER_01But as I was reading the press release, the text throws a massive curveball.
SPEAKER_00It really does.
SPEAKER_01I mean, it jumps from localized legal costs to a completely different stratosphere. The text explicitly claims that TPLI raises significant national security and intellectual property concerns.
SPEAKER_00It is a really striking pivot in the document.
SPEAKER_01It is. And at first, I just couldn't see the bridge between bankrolling a civil lawsuit and threatening a nation's security. But looking at the components the text lays out, like the lack of transparency, the presence of outside capital, and the specific mention of intellectual property, does this imply that foreign state actors could be using our own courts against us?
SPEAKER_00You have hit on the exact vulnerability the source is pointing toward.
SPEAKER_01Okay, wow.
SPEAKER_00Yeah, to understand how that works, we have to examine the mechanics of the discovery phase in civil litigation.
SPEAKER_01Right, the phase where both sides have to show their hands and hand over evidence.
SPEAKER_00Yes. Discovery is a legally mandated exchange of information. So when a company is sued over a patent, a trade secret, or maybe a proprietary algorithm, the judge can legally compel them to hand over highly sensitive internal documents, glueprints, or source code to the opposing side's legal team so they could prepare their case.
SPEAKER_01Which makes sense in a standard lawsuit.
SPEAKER_00Right. But now apply the mechanics of secret third-party funding to that. Imagine a scenario where a massive foreign tech conglomerate, perhaps one tied to a hostile government, wants access to an American company's next generation microchip architecture.
SPEAKER_01Oh, I see where this is going.
SPEAKER_00They can't simply hack the American servers. That risks a severe international incident or sanctions.
SPEAKER_01So instead of hacking them, they just find a smaller American rival or maybe a disgruntled former employee who claims they helped invent a piece of that technology.
SPEAKER_00Exactly. And the foreign entity quietly approaches that smaller rival and offers to completely bankroll a massive scorched-earth intellectual property lawsuit against the major American microchip company. Wow. And because TPLI contracts are generally hidden from the court, no one knows the foreign government is footing the legal bills.
SPEAKER_01Right. So the lawsuit proceeds, the judge mandates discovery, and suddenly the major American company is legally forced to open up its servers and hand over the microchip architecture to the plaintiff's legal team. And because the foreign entity is funding the entire operation and potentially consulting on the technical aspects of the case, they just get a front row seat to all of that proprietary data.
SPEAKER_00They essentially buy a legal backdoor into a competitor's most guarded secrets.
SPEAKER_01That is insane.
SPEAKER_00Yeah, the underlying fear outlined in the text is that the U.S. civil justice system can be effectively weaponized. A foreign adversary can conduct devastating corporate espionage completely anonymously and entirely legally simply by operating as an undisclosed third-party investor.
SPEAKER_01Corporate espionage subsidized by the American justice system. I mean, that is a terrifyingly elegant loophole.
SPEAKER_00It really is.
SPEAKER_01And it elevates this whole issue from a debate over tort reform to a macro level vulnerability. Like when you realize that the civil justice system can be legally manipulated by foreign rivals to steal intellectual property, you suddenly understand why North Carolina lawmakers felt standard regulations were just no longer sufficient.
SPEAKER_00Which leads us directly to the legislative strategy of House Bill three fifteen. The state decided they couldn't simply tweak the rules. They had to shut the door completely.
SPEAKER_01So let's examine the mechanics of that response.
SPEAKER_00Yeah.
SPEAKER_01The bill was championed by the NC Chamber alongside legislative leaders like Senator Buck Newton and former Representative Sarah Stevens. Right. And Governor Josh Stein signed it into law. The text makes a specific point to note that this bill passed nearly unanimously in the North Carolina General Assembly.
SPEAKER_00Which is saying something.
SPEAKER_01Seriously, getting nearly unanimous bipartisan agreement on any issue in 2026 speaks volumes about how compelling lawmakers found both the local economic threats and those national security vulnerabilities.
SPEAKER_00It also highlights a pretty massive divergence in legislative strategy across the country. Because the press release notes that other states have attempted to tackle this issue, but their approach has strictly been focused on transparency.
SPEAKER_01Right, just disclosure.
SPEAKER_00Yeah. Other states are passing laws requiring plaintiffs to disclose if an outside investor is funding the case.
SPEAKER_01So if we think of the courtroom as an exclusive nightclub, transparency laws are essentially just the bouncer asking to see the investor's ID at the door. They're saying you can come in and fund this lawsuit, but you have to tell us who you are and put your name on a public registry.
SPEAKER_00Right.
SPEAKER_01North Carolina, however, is the first state to enact a total prohibition. They didn't ask to see an ID. They just fired the bouncer and bricked up the entrance to the club entirely so no outside money could get in.
SPEAKER_00And Gary Salamito, who is the president and CEO of the NC Chamber, spells out the calculated strategic business angle behind that total ban.
SPEAKER_01What does he say?
SPEAKER_00He states that this historic step is about preserving the legal certainty that supports economic growth and investment across our state.
SPEAKER_01Legal certainty. Why does that specific phrase matter so much to a corporate board looking to build a new factory or relocate a headquarters?
SPEAKER_00Aaron Ross Powell Well, because massive corporations model risk down to the absolute penny, you know. Right. When a multi-billion dollar company decides where to plant its flag, its risk assessment department projects the cost of doing business in that state over the next 20 years. And a massive variable in that formula is litigation defense.
SPEAKER_01Ah okay.
SPEAKER_00If a state has a rampant culture of hedge fund-backed mega lawsuits, that corporation has to hold millions of dollars in reserve just to fight off potentially frivolous, endlessly funded legal battles.
SPEAKER_01They have to basically bake the cost of phantom lawsuits into their operating budget.
SPEAKER_00Exactly. But if a state steps in and completely bans the financial engine driving those lawsuits, they provide legal certainty. The risk modeling becomes highly predictable.
SPEAKER_01Okay, I see.
SPEAKER_00So North Carolina is utilizing this ban as a competitive advantage. If you look at the framing in the press release, they are marketing this legislative first to corporations across the globe. They're promising a business climate completely insulated from third-party financial engineering.
SPEAKER_01It is a brilliant marketing pitch. They're telling corporate executives if you bring your thousands of jobs and your tax revenue to our state, we guarantee you will not be targeted by anonymous hedge funds playing stock market games with your company in our courts. Right. It transitions from a defensive legal maneuver into an aggressive economic development tool.
SPEAKER_00And that localized economic strategy is creating ripples on a national scale now. The text details how federal advocacy organizations, including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the National Association of Manufacturers, are using North Carolina's law as a catalyst. Oh, really? Yeah, they are calling on Congress to emulate this total prohibition nationwide.
SPEAKER_01Right, because Stephen Wegsback, the president of the U.S. Chamber Institute for Legal Reform, he's quoted saying that North Carolina has raised the bar even higher for the reform movement.
SPEAKER_00Aaron Powell The entire deep dive really illustrates a massive philosophical shift in how we view the justice system. I mean, we started by exploring the mechanics of this multi-billion dollar industry where civil disputes are chopped up and sold as uncorrelated assets to Wall Street.
SPEAKER_01Yeah, and we examine the severe criticisms leveled by the business community. You know, how the contractual levers used by investors can force cases to trial, clog up local courts, and prevent regular people from accessing swift justice. We also explored that highly alarming vulnerability regarding intellectual property, where the legally mandated discovery process could be hijacked by foreign actors to conduct anonymous corporate espionage.
SPEAKER_00Right. And ultimately, we analyzed how North Carolina responded to those compounding threats. They totally abandoned the concept of mere transparency and enacted a decisive, bipartisan, total ban just to engineer a haven of legal certainty for economic growth.
SPEAKER_01Aaron Powell It is a profound structural change to the legal landscape. And it leaves you with a really fascinating forward-looking question to ponder long after you finish your coffee today.
SPEAKER_00What's that?
SPEAKER_01Well, we know that states are locked in a constant, fierce economic battle with one another for major corporate investments, right?
SPEAKER_00Aaron Powell Oh, for sure. The competition for those headquarters and factories is relentless.
SPEAKER_01Aaron Powell So if North Carolina's strategy actually works, if corporate risk assessment departments run the numbers and decide that this protective bubble of legal certainty saves them tens of millions of dollars, leading them to flood into the state, will this trigger a legislative domino effect across the rest of the country?
SPEAKER_00Aaron Powell Oh, that's a great question.
SPEAKER_01Like as lawmakers in other states watch North Carolina actively leverage this total ban as a competitive advantage to steal their corporations, will they feel pressured to abandon their own mild transparency laws? Will states be forced to enact their own total bans simply to remain economically relevant and prevent their biggest employers from fleeing to a safer legal harbor?
SPEAKER_00I think the answer to that question will likely reshape the intersection of finance and law for the next decade.
SPEAKER_01It certainly will. So the next time you glance at your retirement portfolio and see those safe, reliable index funds, remember the invisible multi billion dollar market that North Carolina just locked out of the courtroom and ask yourself how long it will take before the rest of the country decides they don't want to buy shares in a stranger's lawsuit either.