Restoring Justice in America’s Courtrooms

Civil courts were established to resolve disputes and restore the parties as close as possible to the same position they would have been without the case being considered.  In other words, the party that was harmed should be made whole. 

But across the country, this system of justice is becoming less about helping victims and more about lining the pockets of trial lawyers and local governments. Too often, the communities and individuals most affected see little relief, while those who bring the lawsuits walk away with millions.

Public nuisance lawsuits, locality litigation, and coordinated efforts bankrolled by third-party litigation funders are the tools being used to extract those massive settlements.

To help address this scourge on the courts, Rep. Mike Collins (R-Ga.) introduced H.R. 5258, the Lawsuit Abuse Reduction Act of 2025.  He said it is a “the courtroom should be a place for justice, not a playground for abuse.” The legislation would make sanctions for frivolous lawsuits mandatory and expand their impact to deter meritless claims and make it mandatory to pay parties harmed by frivolous cases their expensive attorneys’ fees.

Protecting courts from exploitation is critical to safeguarding jobs, families, and communities from the escalating economic burdens that come with lawsuit abuse. A prime example of the abuse of the civil court system is climate-related public nuisance litigation filed in cities and counties against energy producers that are seeking a windfall, often under theories already rejected by higher courts.

On August 6, 2025, in City of Charleston v. Brabham Oil Co., the South Carolina Court of Common Pleas dismissed the city’s climate-change nuisance and fraud lawsuit against fossil fuel companies, ruling them constitutionally improper and preempted by federal law. Charleston’s attempt to use local litigation to achieve global policy goals failed—as it should have—but only after draining taxpayer dollars and judicial resources in the process.

This kind of locality litigation is simply the latest iteration of the trial bar’s “get-rich-quick” playbook. Trial attorneys know that even when their legal standing is thin, the mere threat of protracted litigation can coerce companies into costly settlements, and unfortunately, in many cases, the reputational damage has already been done. The result is not meaningful policy progress, but a shakedown scheme 40 years in the making.

A new round of lawsuits suggests where this playbook may be headed next.

In the past year, class-action filings have begun targeting so-called “ultra-processed foods,” advancing sweeping claims that everyday pantry staples are inherently harmful and that companies have misled consumers by marketing them as safe, even when their ingredients have been approved as safe by the Food and Drug Administration. These cases borrow playbook tactics from tobacco and opioid litigation, but unlike those fights, the underlying science is far less settled.

There is already speculation that these suits are less about protecting consumers and more about opening another lucrative litigation frontier, one that could ensnare everything from cereal makers to frozen-meal producers. If left unchecked, the trial bar could soon be dictating what Americans are allowed to eat through litigation rather than legislation or regulation.

Fueling this trend is the growing role of third-party litigation funding, which includes foreign entities that view the American justice system as a financial tool. By injecting capital into speculative lawsuits in exchange for a share of the winnings, these financiers create perverse incentives to drag out litigation, drive up costs, and discourage reasonable settlements.

The price tag for everyday Americans is staggering. According to Citizens Against Lawsuit Abuse's November 2024 most recent economic impact study, excessive tort costs amount to $367.8 billion in direct costs and $557.8 billion in lost output annually. That is the equivalent of an annual “tort tax” of $1,666 for every American, or $5,215 per family. Excessive litigation costs also ripple through the entire economy, eliminating an estimated 4.8 million jobs.

Small businesses are particularly vulnerable. Unlike large corporations with teams of in-house attorneys, local shops and family-owned businesses are often forced to settle frivolous claims just to keep the lights on. The result is a legal system that punishes entrepreneurship and stifles economic growth.

Tort reform is not about denying anyone their day in court. It is about reestablishing a just and fair legal system that works for all. Legitimate claims deserve fair hearing, and victims of genuine harm must be compensated. But the current system tilts too far toward opportunistic lawsuits that clog the courts, distort public policy, shake down companies, and damage the economy. Reforms like those proposed in the Lawsuit Abuse Reduction Act aim to restore balance by holding abusive litigants accountable and discouraging their misuse of our civil legal system.

America’s courts cannot continue to be a casino where lawyers and financiers place bets on dubious grievances and cash in at the taxpayers’ and victims’ expense. Rep. Collins and his colleagues are right to sound the alarm. Passing meaningful tort reform will help ensure that the U.S. legal system once again serves its true purpose by delivering justice instead of enabling abuse.