The trial lawyer playbook: How aggressive advertising and junk science are costing Californians

In 2024, a staggering $164 million was spent on more than 725,000 legal services advertisements in Los Angeles alone. This isn't just a local phenomenon; it's part of a national trend that saw spending on legal services advertising surge by 39% in 2024 when compared to 2020. Last year, roughly $2.5 billion was spent on nearly 27 million legal services ads across the country. In comparison, pizza restaurants spent $1.1 billion on 4.1 million ads. Welcome to the modern trial lawyer playbook - a strategy that's reshaping the legal landscape and potentially jeopardizing California's economic future.

A recent report on legal services advertising from my organization, the American Tort Reform Association, paints a troubling picture. The number of TV ads for legal services peaked in 2023 with more than 16.4 million spots - a 44% increase from 2017. Radio ads rose even more dramatically, with more than 6.8 million ads in 2024, a staggering 261% increase when compared with 2017.

Law firms and so-called lead generators spare no expense in deploying aggressive advertising campaigns to solicit new clients. These ads, like the accompanying lawsuits, sometimes instill unwarranted trepidation in consumers and can be bereft of scientific substantiation.

But advertising is only the tip of the iceberg. This aggressive marketing often is fueled by third-party litigation funding, a practice that has ballooned into a multi-billion-dollar industry.

Hedge funds and private equity firms now are bankrolling plaintiffs' law firms in exchange for a cut of future settlements and verdicts. Some proponents may argue that this practice expands access to justice; however, it introduces significant ethical quandaries and distorts the traditional dynamics of litigation.

Adding another layer of complexity is the influx of foreign investment, including from sovereign wealth funds. This opaque funding potentially injects foreign influence into domestic legal matters, raising concerns about the integrity of our judicial system.

The consequences of this playbook are far-reaching. Take, for instance, the ongoing litigation against Roundup(r), which has become a poster child for the intersection of third-party funding, aggressive advertising, and questionable science.

California in particular has been home to some of the more lucrative Roundup(r) verdicts, including a $332 million verdict in 2023 out of San Diego and an $87 million verdict in Alameda County two years prior.

Despite more than 800 scientific studies and consensus among environmental safety agencies worldwide refuting claims that glyphosate, Roundup(r)'s active ingredient, causes non-Hodgkin's lymphoma, plaintiffs' lawyers continue to push these cases. They rely heavily on a controversial classification by the International Agency for Research on Cancer, which deemed glyphosate a "probable human carcinogen" - a classification that puts it in the same category as drinking hot beverages.

Processes within IARC itself raise further red flags. Christopher Portier was an "invited specialist" advising IARC on glyphosate. At the same time, Portier was working for the Environmental Defense Fund, an anti-pesticide group, and also received $160,000 from his work as a litigation consultant from law firms suing over injuries allegedly caused by the product. Following his involvement, the final glyphosate study was altered in at least 10 ways, removing or reversing conclusions that found no evidence of carcinogenicity.

This manufactured controversy has enormous implications. Bill Anderson, CEO of Bayer, which manufactures the product, has stated that "the glyphosate litigation topic is an existential topic for our company because it does threaten to remove our ability to continue to innovate for farmers and for security." The resources spent defending against these lawsuits could otherwise be directed toward research and development, potentially stifling innovation in agriculture and threatening food security.

California, with its robust agricultural sector and status as a hub for technological innovation, stands to lose significantly from this continuing litigation trend. The state's courts, particularly in Los Angeles and San Francisco, are hotbeds for mass tort litigation. This not only strains the state's judicial system but creates an unpredictable business environment that could deter companies from operating or expanding in the state.

Moreover, the costs of excessive litigation are ultimately borne by consumers. A recent study found that lawsuit abuse in California results in a "tort tax" of more than $2,458 per person annually. For a family of four, that's nearly $10,000 each year - money that could be spent on education, healthcare, or savings.

In the state's litigation hot spots, these figures are far more alarming. Los Angeles residents pay $3,658 per person annually and in San Francisco the tort tax jumps even higher to $4,651 per person.

To address these issues, we need a multi-pronged approach including transparency in litigation funding and stricter standards for expert evidence. California should follow the lead of states across the country currently considering legislation to require disclosure of third-party funding arrangements in lawsuits. California's courts also should align themselves with nationwide best practices for admitting scientific evidence and adopt more rigorous standards similar to the newly amended Federal Rule of Evidence 702. Judges must actively serve as gatekeepers to ensure such junk science evidence does not enter their courts.

Perhaps most importantly, Californians must be aware of just how misleading these aggressive legal advertising campaigns can be and consult with their healthcare professionals before making any changes based on unsubstantiated claims made by TV commercial lawyers. There are real costs of excessive litigation to our economy but absent legislation to regulate misleading legal services advertisements, it is critical to make our communities aware that not everything they see on TV is accurate.

The trial lawyer playbook may be lucrative for a select few, but it comes at a steep cost to the civil justice system, economy, and ultimately, to every Californian. It's time to rewrite the rules and ensure that our legal system serves its true purpose: delivering justice, not jackpots.

In 2024, a staggering $164 million was spent on more than 725,000 legal services advertisements in Los Angeles alone. This isn't just a local phenomenon; it's part of a national trend that saw spending on legal services advertising surge by 39% in 2024 when compared to 2020. Last year, roughly $2.5 billion was spent on nearly 27 million legal services ads across the country. In comparison, pizza restaurants spent $1.1 billion on 4.1 million ads. Welcome to the modern trial lawyer playbook - a strategy that's reshaping the legal landscape and potentially jeopardizing California's economic future.

A recent report on legal services advertising from my organization, the American Tort Reform Association, paints a troubling picture. The number of TV ads for legal services peaked in 2023 with more than 16.4 million spots - a 44% increase from 2017. Radio ads rose even more dramatically, with more than 6.8 million ads in 2024, a staggering 261% increase when compared with 2017.

Law firms and so-called lead generators spare no expense in deploying aggressive advertising campaigns to solicit new clients. These ads, like the accompanying lawsuits, sometimes instill unwarranted trepidation in consumers and can be bereft of scientific substantiation.

But advertising is only the tip of the iceberg. This aggressive marketing often is fueled by third-party litigation funding, a practice that has ballooned into a multi-billion-dollar industry.

Hedge funds and private equity firms now are bankrolling plaintiffs' law firms in exchange for a cut of future settlements and verdicts. Some proponents may argue that this practice expands access to justice; however, it introduces significant ethical quandaries and distorts the traditional dynamics of litigation.

Adding another layer of complexity is the influx of foreign investment, including from sovereign wealth funds. This opaque funding potentially injects foreign influence into domestic legal matters, raising concerns about the integrity of our judicial system.

The consequences of this playbook are far-reaching. Take, for instance, the ongoing litigation against Roundup(r), which has become a poster child for the intersection of third-party funding, aggressive advertising, and questionable science.

California in particular has been home to some of the more lucrative Roundup(r) verdicts, including a $332 million verdict in 2023 out of San Diego and an $87 million verdict in Alameda County two years prior.

Despite more than 800 scientific studies and consensus among environmental safety agencies worldwide refuting claims that glyphosate, Roundup(r)'s active ingredient, causes non-Hodgkin's lymphoma, plaintiffs' lawyers continue to push these cases. They rely heavily on a controversial classification by the International Agency for Research on Cancer, which deemed glyphosate a "probable human carcinogen" - a classification that puts it in the same category as drinking hot beverages.

Processes within IARC itself raise further red flags. Christopher Portier was an "invited specialist" advising IARC on glyphosate. At the same time, Portier was working for the Environmental Defense Fund, an anti-pesticide group, and also received $160,000 from his work as a litigation consultant from law firms suing over injuries allegedly caused by the product. Following his involvement, the final glyphosate study was altered in at least 10 ways, removing or reversing conclusions that found no evidence of carcinogenicity.

This manufactured controversy has enormous implications. Bill Anderson, CEO of Bayer, which manufactures the product, has stated that "the glyphosate litigation topic is an existential topic for our company because it does threaten to remove our ability to continue to innovate for farmers and for security." The resources spent defending against these lawsuits could otherwise be directed toward research and development, potentially stifling innovation in agriculture and threatening food security.

California, with its robust agricultural sector and status as a hub for technological innovation, stands to lose significantly from this continuing litigation trend. The state's courts, particularly in Los Angeles and San Francisco, are hotbeds for mass tort litigation. This not only strains the state's judicial system but creates an unpredictable business environment that could deter companies from operating or expanding in the state.

Moreover, the costs of excessive litigation are ultimately borne by consumers. A recent study found that lawsuit abuse in California results in a "tort tax" of more than $2,458 per person annually. For a family of four, that's nearly $10,000 each year - money that could be spent on education, healthcare, or savings.

In the state's litigation hot spots, these figures are far more alarming. Los Angeles residents pay $3,658 per person annually and in San Francisco the tort tax jumps even higher to $4,651 per person.

To address these issues, we need a multi-pronged approach including transparency in litigation funding and stricter standards for expert evidence. California should follow the lead of states across the country currently considering legislation to require disclosure of third-party funding arrangements in lawsuits. California's courts also should align themselves with nationwide best practices for admitting scientific evidence and adopt more rigorous standards similar to the newly amended Federal Rule of Evidence 702. Judges must actively serve as gatekeepers to ensure such junk science evidence does not enter their courts.

Perhaps most importantly, Californians must be aware of just how misleading these aggressive legal advertising campaigns can be and consult with their healthcare professionals before making any changes based on unsubstantiated claims made by TV commercial lawyers. There are real costs of excessive litigation to our economy but absent legislation to regulate misleading legal services advertisements, it is critical to make our communities aware that not everything they see on TV is accurate.

The trial lawyer playbook may be lucrative for a select few, but it comes at a steep cost to the civil justice system, economy, and ultimately, to every Californian. It's time to rewrite the rules and ensure that our legal system serves its true purpose: delivering justice, not jackpots.