The week ending September 10 is best understood through a single thread running from Raleigh to Oklahoma City to Capitol Hill: the effort to regulate or eliminate third-party litigation funding (TPLF) hit several simultaneous inflection points, while Missouri's statute-of-limitations fight produced a negotiated outcome that compresses the filing window for late-presenting injury claims. Plaintiff counsel who has not updated engagement contracts and case-selection criteria for a post-TPLF-regulation environment should do so before the year ends.
North Carolina Becomes the First State to Prohibit TPLF
The most significant development this week is North Carolina's Prohibit Litigation Investments Act, signed by Governor Josh Stein after clearing both legislative chambers. The law makes it unlawful for outside investors to finance litigation in exchange for any financial interest tied to a lawsuit's outcome. The prohibition is categorical, not disclosure-based, placing North Carolina in a fundamentally different regulatory posture than every other state that has addressed the issue. For plaintiff firms with any North Carolina presence, or with referral relationships sending North Carolina cases to funded firms, the law's prohibitory scope should be reviewed with outside counsel before November.
North Carolina joins Georgia, which requires TPLF disclosure under SB 69 (mandatory since January 1, 2026), and New York, whose Consumer Litigation Funding Act has been in effect since June 17, 2026, as the states with the most active regulatory frameworks. The New York regime imposes a 25 percent cap on funder recovery, requires Department of State registration, and mandates plain-language contract disclosures, a model that several other state legislatures are actively tracking.
Oklahoma's HB 2619: Discoverability Effective November 1
Governor Kevin Stitt signed HB 2619 into law in May, but its November 1 effective date is now close enough to warrant immediate attention. The law makes third-party litigation funding agreements discoverable and bars investments from entities designated as foreign adversaries. Unlike North Carolina's outright prohibition, Oklahoma's approach follows the disclosure model: the funding agreement enters the case file as discoverable material. That means defense counsel will see the funding structure and will use it in settlement negotiations — and potentially in motions to disqualify counsel where the funder's contractual interest and the client's interest diverge.
For plaintiff firms operating in Oklahoma, any case currently funded or about to be funded should have the funding agreement reviewed before November 1 for provisions that would create a visible conflict on the face of a discoverable document. Cases filed after the effective date will be subject to the law from inception.
The Federal Push: Grassley's Litigation Funding Transparency Act
Senator Chuck Grassley introduced the Litigation Funding Transparency Act of 2026, which would require disclosure of outside investors in federal class actions and multi-district litigation, restrict funders from controlling legal strategy or accessing confidential discovery, and impose reporting requirements on funder identity and deal terms. The bill specifically targets the MDL docket, which is where institutional TPLF operates at the largest scale.
The bill has not yet cleared committee, but its introduction in the same week that North Carolina enacted a prohibition signals sustained Congressional attention to an issue the plaintiff bar has largely managed to keep at the state level. A federal disclosure mandate covering MDL dockets would have immediate practical consequences for mass-tort case selection and for the economics of funded plaintiff inventories. Firms carrying funded mass-tort inventories should model the disclosure scenario into their case valuations now, rather than waiting for committee action.
Missouri: Statute of Limitations Negotiates to Three Years
Missouri's broader tort reform package, led by HB 1645, produced a negotiated outcome in the Senate this week. The original proposal would have cut the state's personal injury statute of limitations from five years to two, but a Senate floor fight forced a compromise. The agreed figure is three years. The bill is expected to apply prospectively to injuries occurring after an effective date of August 28, though enrolled language is still being confirmed as of this writing.
The five-to-three reduction matters most for late-presenting cases: occupational disease, toxic exposure, and claims where causation is not immediately apparent at the time of injury. For plaintiff counsel with any Missouri connection, the practical implication is to begin filing conservatively on cases where the accrual date is ambiguous and the current five-year window would have provided ample buffer. If HB 1645 passes in its current form, that buffer is gone.
The Missouri Chamber of Commerce named tort reform one of its four critical legislative priorities for 2026 and the American Tort Reform Association has cited Missouri's statute of limitations as a national outlier, suggesting that even the three-year compromise may not be the final stopping point in future sessions.
Uber Sexual Assault MDL: $8.5M Verdict, Next Trial October 7
The Uber sexual assault MDL returned an $8.5 million verdict this week, adding to the cumulative record building against the company in this litigation. The MDL now carries more than 3,000 pending cases, with plaintiffs arguing that Uber's background-check and driver-vetting processes created foreseeable sexual assault risk that the platform did not adequately address. The next trial is scheduled for October 7, 2026, and will again center on whether Uber's duty to screen drivers was non-delegable regardless of independent contractor classification.
The verdict is significant for the broader TNC liability question because the non-delegable duty theory has now survived dispositive motions and reached verdict twice. For PI practitioners evaluating Uber assault cases, the per-case valuation question has an MDL benchmark: $8.5 million in a case that reached verdict this cycle. Cases with more severe injury profiles or longer periods of platform access by a driver with prior incidents should carry materially higher demand figures than that baseline.
Talc: Minnesota Verdict Stands, Los Angeles Adds $32M Outside the Settlement Fund
J&J's $5.5 billion global talc settlement continues to move through claims administration, but the litigation remains live for exposure profiles not covered by the July 2026 deal. A Minnesota court left a $65.5 million mesothelioma verdict standing against J&J this week, and a Los Angeles jury returned a $32 million verdict in a pleural mesothelioma death case where the plaintiff's talc exposure was industrial rather than cosmetic. Industrial exposure claims, building-materials exposure, and occupational exposure outside of cosmetic use are proceeding to trial and producing significant verdicts because they fall outside the settlement fund's scope.
For plaintiff counsel handling mesothelioma cases with a talc connection, the threshold question remains: does the exposure profile qualify for the settlement fund or does it proceed to the litigation track? The Minnesota and Los Angeles verdicts confirm that the litigation track remains viable and productive for cases outside the fund's parameters.
What to Watch Next Week
- Audit existing and pending TPLF agreements for compliance exposure in Georgia, New York, and Oklahoma (effective November 1). If your practice touches North Carolina, evaluate the prohibition's scope against your current case portfolio.
- In Missouri, begin conservative filing on any case with an ambiguous accrual date and a filing window that would close under a three-year statute.
- In Uber TNC cases, review demand positioning relative to the $8.5M verdict benchmark and the October 7 trial, which will add another data point to the MDL valuation record.
Deeper coverage of how settlement financing and lien resolution intersect with the TPLF regulatory framework is tracked in our liens and settlement section. Recent MDL and appellate developments are covered in case law and settlements. Firm-side operational implications of funding and tort-reform shifts are covered weekly in industry news.