WeVote
Log In

Bill

Bill

AB 743

Relating to: considering post-traumatic stress disorder as a mitigating factor in sentencing certain criminal offenders. (FE)

2025-2026 Regular Session Introduced by Margaret Arney and 15 co-sponsors

AB 743 creates a licensing regime for lawsuit financiers under California Financing Law, with background checks, bonds, and DFPI oversight to curb fraud and protect consumers.

Representative Moore Omokunde added as a coauthor
0
WeVote Research Nonpartisan
Bill Summary · AB 743

AB 743 (Rodriguez) — Summary: Licensing and regulation of “lawsuit financiers” (California Financing Law)

Note on scope: The bill text provided concerns regulation of third‑party litigation funding (“lawsuit financing”), not a bill about post‑traumatic stress disorder and sentencing. If you intended the PTSD sentencing measure, please confirm. Below is a comprehensive summary of the lawsuit‑financing bill as provided.

Main purpose / intent

AB 743 would bring third‑party litigation financing into the regulatory framework of the California Financing Law by defining and licensing “lawsuit financiers.” The Legislature’s stated goals are to protect consumers, reduce fraud and market manipulation, guard against use of litigation financing to evade sanctions or enable illicit actors, and ensure only financially responsible entities operate in California.

Key provisions and changes

  • New definitions
    • Adds “lawsuit financier” (Financial Code §22021) and defines “lawsuit financing” (§22022) as transactions in which a person provides value (money, services, etc.), with or without recourse, in exchange for a contingent right to proceeds of a judgment, settlement, award, or in return for interest, fees, or other consideration.
  • Licensing requirement
    • Prohibits engaging in the business of lawsuit financing in California without a license issued by the Commissioner of Financial Protection and Innovation (new §22100.6).
    • Requires the department to list lawsuit financing as an industry category on its licensee search webpage.
  • Scope and integration
    • Amends the definition of “licensee” (§22007) to explicitly include lawsuit financiers.
    • Includes lawsuit financing within the statutory concept of “commercial loan” (per digest language).
  • Application and background checks
    • Amends existing licensing application provisions (§22101) to require applicants (who are not already licensed) to provide fingerprints and related information for criminal history checks; the commissioner will obtain DOJ and FBI records (cross‑references to §22101.5).
  • Financial security and penalties
    • Requires licensees who are lawsuit financiers to maintain a surety bond “as prescribed” (language in digest).
    • Makes willful violations of the California Financing Law by a lawsuit financier subject to civil penalties (specific amounts and penalty mechanics are not included in the truncated text provided).
  • Administrative flexibility
    • Allows the commissioner to set application form, fee, and procedural rules (e.g., electronic filings, use of NMLS where applicable).

Who is affected

  • Primary: entities and individuals providing third‑party litigation financing (domestic and foreign funds, hedge funds, private equity, specialized litigation finance companies).
  • Secondary: claimants/plaintiffs who accept financing, plaintiff attorneys, defendants and insurers, courts, and the Department of Financial Protection and Innovation (DFPI), which would administer and enforce the licensing program.
  • Broader: market participants concerned with consumer recovery of awards and potential national security/anti‑fraud interests referenced in legislative findings.

Implementation, enforcement, and fiscal notes

  • The bill places oversight with the DFPI (commissioner). Some provisions call for criminal background checks via DOJ and FBI.
  • The digest flags fiscal committee review (Fiscal Committee: YES) but indicates no appropriation in the bill text provided; enforcement and licensing would likely have administrative costs to DFPI (not quantified here).
  • Procedural status (from materials provided): passed the Assembly (recorded actions through June 2025), referred to Senate committees (Banking & Financial Institutions; Judiciary), with hearings scheduled and at least one canceled at author’s request (7/1/2025). Exact current status should be checked on the Legislature’s website for updates.

Notable legislative findings cited

  • Reliance on a 2022 GAO report estimating multibillion‑dollar litigation finance activity in the U.S.
  • Cited investigative reporting (Bloomberg Law, others) alleging use of litigation funding by sanctioned Russian oligarchs and links to international criminal activity.
  • Policy rationale emphasizes consumer protection, preventing exploitation and fraud, and addressing unregulated “shadow” finance activity.

If you want, I can:
- Extract and list the specific Financial Code sections the bill would add or amend (with exact statutory text where available).
- Track the bill’s up‑to‑date status and committee referrals.
- Prepare a brief on likely stakeholder positions and compliance impacts (costs, timelines, bond levels) once full bill language (including bond amount and penalty details) is available.

Compiled from official sources — confirm details with the bill’s official record.

Sign in to ask a question.