Slogans such as, “We fight for millions” or “Get the settlement you deserve” do more than attract potential clients—they recalibrate public perception of justice itself. Through sheer repetition, these ads teach jurors that multi-million-dollar awards are not only normal, but also expected. By the time a trial begins, many jurors walk in with inflated notions of value and entitlement, subtly shifting verdicts, settlements, and, ultimately, the cost of doing business.
For businesses, this shift changes the stakes of every lawsuit. A claim that once might have been resolved for its actual economic value now risks being judged against a backdrop of headline-grabbing verdicts promoted in advertising campaigns. The result is built-in pressure on defendants to settle for more than the claim is worth simply to avoid a runaway jury award.
The effect is especially punishing for small and mid-sized businesses. While larger corporations may cushion the blow through layered insurance programs, a single oversized verdict can threaten the very survival of a smaller enterprise. Even before trial, the cost of defending inflated claims forces many companies into settlements that distort the true value of litigation.
Over time, excessive verdicts shift what jurors view as “normal.” Each outlier feeds into public consciousness, raising the baseline for the next jury. This cycle undermines predictability in the courtroom and creates long-term economic drag as businesses face higher premiums, fewer coverage options, and greater financial risk.
Industries that depend heavily on liability insurance—health care, transportation, construction, and hospitality—see elevated costs ripple down to consumers in the form of higher prices, reduced services, and fewer choices. Plaintiff advertising is not just shaping juror perceptions; it is reshaping the cost of doing business in America.
The Evolution of Plaintiff Lawyer Advertising
Attorney advertising was considered unethical until the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Bates v. State Bar of Arizona, 433 U.S. 350 (1977), which recognized it as protected commercial speech under the First Amendment. What began with a handful of experimental firms has become a multi-billion-dollar industry spanning television, billboards, radio, and social media.
The American Tort Reform Association (ATRA) reports that legal service providers spent roughly $2.5 billion on nearly 27 million ads in 2024. Television placements jumped 44% since 2017, while radio and outdoor advertising rose over 260%. Florida led with $886 million in local ad spending between 2017 and 2021, followed by Texas at $603 million. California alone saw $238 million in 2023, across more than 2 million local spots. These numbers surpass ad spending for many mainstream consumer industries, such as restaurants.
More recently, third-party litigation funding (TPLF) has turbocharged this phenomenon. According to Triple-I, assets under management reached an estimated $16 billion in 2024, with nearly three-quarters directed toward legal budgets, including plaintiff recruitment through advertising. This influx of capital allows firms to maintain costly, omnipresent campaigns that often overpromise outcomes and stoke mass litigation.
Business Model Behind the Billboards
Plaintiff firms pour vast amounts of money into advertising, confident that the return on investment will justify the expense. Many operate as “settlement mills,” processing a high volume of claims with an emphasis on quick resolution rather than courtroom advocacy. Others use advertising to build war chests that fund high-stakes litigation, including class actions and mass torts. The result is a marketing arms race, particularly in urban centers where plaintiff firms compete aggressively for visibility.
A recurring theme in plaintiff advertising is the portrayal of insurers as callous corporations that deny or delay claims. The narrative is simple and emotional: “They don’t care about you, but we do.” Over years of repetition, jurors enter courtrooms predisposed to distrust insurers, even when evidence suggests otherwise.
A national survey by the Defense Research Institute found that 59% of respondents would favor the plaintiff in a case involving an insurer, while only 10% would side with the insurance company. Among adults aged 18 to 29, 71% favored individuals over insurers. In so-called “Judicial Hellholes,” jurisdictions notorious for excessive verdicts, dense concentrations of plaintiff ads reinforce these anti-insurer narratives and prime jurors to “teach a lesson” through damages.
The result is also a disproportionate number of runaway verdicts, or awards that exceed $10 million or more, that ripple far beyond the courtroom. These inflated verdicts drive up insurance premiums, discourage business investment, and further entrench the cycle of litigation abuse. In essence, the same advertising saturation that fuels distrust of insurers also sets the stage for outsized jury awards in the nation’s most plaintiff-friendly courts.
This messaging has a cumulative effect: Jurors drawn from the general population arrive to the courtroom with a baked-in distrust of business. Even if the insurance company is not mentioned during the trial, the preconception prevails. Conditioned by years of exposure to these messages, instead of approaching a case neutrally, jurors often assume from the outset that the insurer is acting in bad faith, even where the evidence suggests otherwise.
Inflated Expectations and Economic Consequences
Advertising normalizes the idea that seven- or eight-figure verdicts are typical. For businesses on the receiving end, this shift is profound. What might once have been viewed as a routine claim for compensatory damages is now framed by jurors against a backdrop of outsized settlements they have seen advertised repeatedly. Instead of evaluating damages based on the facts—medical bills, lost wages, or actual economic loss—jurors often anchor their valuations around the inflated figures popularized by plaintiff advertising. This “anchoring effect” drives verdicts higher, even in relatively straightforward cases.
Over time, these inflated benchmarks reset the norms for juries themselves. What once seemed extraordinary becomes expected, creating a vicious cycle. Each new Nuclear Verdict not only punishes the defendant in that particular case but also conditions future jurors to see multi-million-dollar awards as the baseline. This erodes predictability in the civil justice system and undermines businesses’ ability to plan, price, and insure against risk.
As premiums rise and retention levels climb, businesses are left with difficult choices: pass costs on to consumers, reduce services, or operate with less protection. In this way, plaintiff advertising does not simply influence one jury box at a time; it reshapes the economic ecosystem in which businesses operate with costs ultimately borne by employees, customers, and communities.
Economic Impact: Nuclear Verdicts and Systematic Cost Inflation
Over the past two decades, average verdicts and settlements in personal injury and employment cases have escalated dramatically. While inflation and rising medical costs play a role, the influence of advertising cannot be overlooked. Jurors exposed to a steady drumbeat of plaintiff messaging are more likely to award higher damages, including Nuclear Verdicts that bear little relationship to actual harm.
These verdicts and settlements do not exist in a vacuum: Insurance carriers pass increased costs on to policyholders in the form of higher premiums. Businesses, particularly small and mid-sized companies, struggle with rising coverage costs, higher retention points, and, in some cases, the unavailability of coverage altogether.
Consumers, too, bear the burden— not only through higher insurance premiums but also through reduced coverage options, increased deductibles, and the social cost of more un[1]insured or underinsured individuals. The aggregate effect is a drag on the economy, discouraging entrepreneur[1]ship and increasing the costs of goods and services.
Ambulance Chasers Become Champions of Justice
Another striking development is the shift in cultural perception. Plaintiff lawyers who were once scorned as opportunistic ambulance chasers are now cast as champions of the underdog. Through relentless advertising, they have succeeded in positioning themselves as protectors of the community, in contrast to the supposedly heartless insurance industry. Ironically, while these ads decry corporate profit motives, they are themselves powerful revenue-generation engines that often distort the system’s balance.
For too long, the insurance and defense industries have allowed this narrative to go unchallenged. While plaintiff lawyers flooded television and social media with emotional appeals, insurers largely stayed silent. That vacuum has allowed the plaintiffs’ bar to define both insurers and their insureds as antagonists, shaping public opinion, jury bias, and even legislative sentiment. To restore balance, the defense community must reclaim the narrative and communicate its role in maintaining fairness and economic stability. To be fair, there are strong challenges in the courtrooms as defense lawyers squarely challenge the narrative and damages through voir dire and powerful trial lawyers. However, this is one case at a time against a barrage of billboards, social media, and more by the plaintiff side of the coin.
Time for Action
It’s time for businesses and insurers to stop playing defense and lead the charge. Plaintiff advertising, runaway verdicts, and unchecked litigation funding have created a culture that glorifies suing and punishes responsibility. These are not just courtroom problems; they’re economic threats that drive up premiums, inflate prices, and strain consumers. We all pay the price.
Together, businesses and carriers must push for truth in legal advertising, transparency in litigation funding, and meaningful tort reform. They should invest in public education that demystifies insurance, humanizes risk, and challenges the “sue first, settle later” narrative that has distorted the system. By reclaiming the message, they can champion a fair, sustainable civil justice system—one that rewards accountability, not opportunism.
When insurers are forced to pay outsized settlements and inflated verdicts, everyone loses. Higher premiums become higher prices, driving costs across every sector. The ripple effect is real—it hits families, small businesses, and entire industries. The solution is not silence; it is action, unity, and a willingness to tell the other side of the story—the story of fairness, reason, and shared responsibility.
Finally, defense trial lawyers play a pivotal role. Beyond courtroom advocacy, they must engage in thought leadership that exposes the economic and societal costs of unchecked advertising. By emphasizing professionalism and fairness, the defense bar can help recalibrate public perception and restore confidence in the civil justice system.
The proliferation of plaintiff lawyer advertising is more than a marketing trend; it is a cultural and economic force reshaping litigation in America. By casting insurers as villains, inflating expectations, and encouraging immediate legal action after accidents, these ads distort jury pools and destabilize the insurance market. The solution begins with reclaiming the narrative. Transparency, advocacy, and education can restore balance to a system tilted by emotion and misinformation. If the defense industry continues to remain silent, plaintiff advertising will continue to define the conversation. The cost of that silence will be borne by everyone.