California’s proposed A.B. 2305, aimed at insulating litigation from third-party influence, addresses a fundamental principle of our legal system: litigation must be directed by clients and their counsel. But is it necessary, or do reputable, professional funders already follow this standard?

The latest “Insider” report from Westfleet Advisors offers a timely snapshot of the US litigation funding market—but its implications reach far beyond a single jurisdiction. The trends identified will feel familiar to lawyers and claimants alike: a more cautious funding environment, increased scrutiny, and shifting dynamics between funders and their investors.

Another attempt to introduce federal regulation of litigation funding in the U.S. stalled in Congress this week, underscoring how difficult it remains to reach consensus on transparency and oversight.

In a recent decision that may influence how courts approach discovery requests involving litigation funding, Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California denied Apple Inc.’s motion to compel production of documents related to Haptic Inc.’s litigation funding arrangements.