Georgia’s legal environment is entering a new era, and corporate defendants should take note. The state’s recently enacted Senate Bill 69, a sweeping regulation of third-party litigation funding (“TPLF”), arrives at the same time a new national study shows jurors are increasingly willing to punish large corporations, even if it means going beyond the letter of the law.

For corporate defendants, the convergence of these two developments (heightened scrutiny of external litigation financing and a jury pool primed to “send messages” to corporations) creates both risks and opportunities.

The Jury Sentiment Shift: Anti-Establishment at an All-Time High

According to an Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe survey of 1,282 jury-eligible adults across 14 states, 72% of respondents now believe an important function of juries is to send messages to corporations to improve their behavior — up sharply from 62% in 2022.

Other findings underscore the challenge for corporate defendants:

• 65% say they would prioritize protecting the community over following the letter of the law, up from 52% in 2022.
• 86% believe corporations put profits ahead of safety, and the same percentage think companies will use influence to “rig the system” with regulators like the FDA and EPA.
• 57% believe the judicial system has let them down and can’t be trusted.
• 64% are willing to boycott companies over political or other beliefs they don’t share.

The study found these views are bipartisan. While the reasons for distrust differ, for example, coastal women citing post-Dobbs concerns and younger men in red states feeling “left out” the end result is the same: deep skepticism of institutions, including corporations and the courts.

For defense counsel, this means jury selection strategies must accept that some anti-corporate sentiment will always be present — and the task becomes managing which jurors with such views end up on the panel, rather than eliminating them entirely.

S.B. 69: Regulating the Litigation Finance Industry

Against this backdrop, Georgia enacted S.B. 69, the “Georgia Courts Access and Consumer Protection Act,” on April 21, 2025. The law, effective January 1, 2026, imposes significant new restrictions on litigation financiers:

• Mandatory Registration with the Georgia Department of Banking and Finance.
• Foreign Adversary Ban, blocking entities from countries like China, Russia, and Iran from funding Georgia cases.
• Limits on Controlling Strategy, preventing funders from influencing legal strategy or witness selection.
• Transparency Requirements, making funding agreements discoverable.
• Consumer Protections, capping recovery amounts and requiring clear disclosures.
• Joint Liability for sanctions or costs awarded against funded litigants.
• Severe Penalties, including making violative agreements void and potential felony charges for willful violations.

These measures aim to curb the influence of hidden financial backers, ensure litigants and courts know who is bankrolling cases, and reduce the potential for inflated “nuclear verdicts.”

Connecting the Dots: How Jury Attitudes and S.B. 69 Intersect

The Orrick study suggests jurors are not just open to holding corporations accountable but that many are eager to do so, even bending legal standards if necessary. S.B. 69, by forcing greater transparency around litigation funding, may shape how jurors view the motivations behind lawsuits and the parties involved.

For defendants, this creates two parallel imperatives:

1. In the Courtroom: Address juror distrust head-on. Relying solely on burden-of-proof arguments is no longer enough. Jurors expect authenticity, transparency, and specific, fact-backed evidence that a company’s values align with community safety.
2. Before Litigation: Adopt proactive corporate practices that reduce reputational risk. Given that 76% of respondents said they would stop using a product if they heard it might cause harm (even without conclusive proof) companies need to communicate openly about safety issues before they become lawsuits.

Practical Takeaways for Corporate Defendants

• Revamp Jury Selection Strategy: Accept that some anti-corporate jurors will be seated. Focus on identifying those least likely to persuade others to extreme punitive stances.
• Leverage S.B. 69 Disclosures: Use litigation funding transparency to question the plaintiff’s financial motivations and highlight potential outside influence.
• Build Trust Outside the Courtroom: Demonstrate corporate values in ways that resonate with the public, reducing the baseline distrust jurors may bring into the box.
• Avoid “Talking Point” Defenses: Jurors in today’s climate will reject generic corporate messaging; specificity and candor are essential.

Conclusion:

Georgia’s S.B. 69 reins in the hidden financing behind personal injury litigation. But it doesn’t erase the reality that jurors are arriving with unprecedented skepticism of corporate defendants. The combination demands defense strategies that are transparent, authentic, and deeply attuned to community values.

For corporate counsel and insurers, the message is clear: the courtroom is no longer just about law, it’s about trust. Preparing for that shift is not optional. It’s the new baseline for defense.