Much has been written recently about the rising cost of litigation and what it supposedly costs the average American.

Businesses, insurers, and advocacy organizations argue that higher verdicts, legal expenses, and what is often called "social inflation" ultimately reach consumers through higher insurance premiums and the cost of goods and services. Recent media coverage has amplified the debate, particularly as states consider tort reforms intended to reduce litigation costs and, theoretically, lower insurance costs for consumers.

That is a legitimate policy discussion.

But it leaves out another consumer entirely.

What about the injured consumer who is waiting for the legal system to resolve a legitimate claim?

For that person, the cost of litigation isn't theoretical or something that may eventually appear in an insurance premium. The cost of waiting can arrive every 30 days.

The rent is due. The mortgage is due. The electric bill arrives. The family needs groceries. The car payment doesn't stop.

And the injury that created the legal claim may have reduced or eliminated the consumer's ability to work.

There Are Two Consumer Costs

This distinction is important.

When policymakers hear that litigation costs consumers money, the conversation usually focuses on the indirect cost allegedly passed through the economy.

But an injured plaintiff can experience a very different direct cost.

The U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics reported that average household expenditures reached $78,535 in 2024, approximately $6,545 every month. Housing alone averaged $2,189 per month, transportation $1,110, and food approximately $847.

That means ordinary household expenditures average approximately:

12 months: $78,535

24 months: $157,070

36 months: $235,605

Those numbers do not suggest an injured consumer needs to replace every dollar of normal household spending. They demonstrate something much simpler: time costs money.

Imagine a household experiencing only a $1,000 monthly shortfall because an injured family member cannot work the same hours as before.

After 12 months, the gap is $12,000.

After 24 months, it is $24,000.

After 36 months, it is $36,000.

And that doesn't include the potential consequences of falling behind.

Delay Has a Compounding Cost

A missed payment rarely exists in isolation.

Falling behind on a car payment can threaten the transportation someone needs to return to work.

Missing rent can threaten housing stability.

Using credit cards to replace lost income creates debt that continues accumulating.

Depleting savings leaves nothing available for the next emergency.

The Federal Reserve's 2026 report on household economic well-being illustrates just how little financial cushion many families have. Only 63 percent of adults said they could cover a $400 emergency expense entirely with cash or its equivalent.

If millions of Americans have difficulty absorbing a $400 financial shock, expecting an injured consumer to absorb months or even years of reduced income while waiting for a legal claim to resolve is unrealistic.

That is the consumer cost largely missing from today's litigation debate.

The Cost of Litigation and the Cost of Delay Are Not the Same Thing

Recent discussions about litigation costs frequently focus on insurance premiums.

That deserves examination. But the connection isn't always as straightforward as some suggest.

For example, 2025 Associated Press reporting on Georgia's tort-reform debate noted that evidence is mixed over whether restricting lawsuits produces significant reductions in automobile and other insurance premiums.

More recent reporting examining Florida's tort reforms raised similar questions about whether restrictions designed to reduce litigation costs necessarily translate into the consumer savings originally promised.

This does not mean litigation costs don't matter.

It means policymakers should be careful about treating every dollar associated with litigation as though it affects consumers in the same way.

There is an important distinction between a theoretical or indirect cost distributed across millions of policyholders and the immediate financial consequences experienced by an injured individual waiting for compensation.

For that consumer, delay itself has a price.

Who Can Afford to Wait?

There is another imbalance that deserves greater attention.

A deep-pocketed defendant can wait.

A large corporation can wait.

An injured consumer whose rent is due Friday may not be able to.

For an institutional party, another month may be a business consideration.

For a household already experiencing lost income, another month can mean another $1,000 or $1,500 financial hole.

Eventually, that pressure can influence the consumer's decision about the legal claim itself.

The consumer may tell an attorney: "I can't afford to wait anymore. Settle the case."

At that point, the dispute isn't being determined solely by the merits of the claim.

Economic staying power has entered the equation.

This Is Why Consumer Legal Funding Exists

Consumer Legal Funding helps address that imbalance.

It provides funds to consumers with pending legal claims who need financial assistance while waiting for those claims to be resolved.

The funds are not used to pay attorneys, expert witnesses, or litigation expenses. They can help consumers meet ordinary household obligations such as rent, mortgage payments, utilities, groceries, and transportation.

Most importantly, Consumer Legal Funding is non-recourse. Repayment is contingent upon the consumer receiving proceeds from the legal claim. If there is no recovery, the consumer owes the funding company nothing.

Critics frequently focus on what Consumer Legal Funding costs.

That is fair.

But policymakers should ask the other half of the question: what does it cost the consumer not to have it?

Eliminating Consumer Legal Funding doesn't eliminate the rent.

It doesn't eliminate the electric bill.

It doesn't eliminate the car payment.

And it doesn't replace lost income.

The need remains.

Consumer Protection Requires Looking at Both Sides

Consumer Legal Funding should have meaningful disclosures, clear contracts, and appropriate consumer protections.

But consumer protection should also recognize economic reality.

There is a cost associated with obtaining financial assistance.

There is also a potentially greater cost when an injured consumer does not have access to financial assistance and must wait months or years for a claim to be resolved.

That second cost deserves far more attention.

When policymakers hear claims that litigation is costing the average consumer money, they should ask a follow-up question: which consumer are we talking about?

The consumer whose annual insurance premium might theoretically be affected by litigation costs?

Or the injured consumer who may be losing hundreds or thousands of dollars every month while waiting for a legitimate claim to be resolved?

Both deserve consideration.

But they are not the same economic problem.

The American civil justice system operates in months and years.

American families operate paycheck to paycheck, bill to bill and due date to due date.

That gap is precisely why Consumer Legal Funding exists.

For years, the debate has focused on what litigation costs insurers, businesses and ultimately consumers.

It is time to recognize the other side of the equation.

What does it cost a consumer to wait?

Because a well-financed defendant can wait another month or two or three.

For an injured American family, another month can change everything.

Consumer Legal Funding: Funding Lives, Not Litigation.