Georgia Governor Brian Kemp has signed Georgia Senate Bills 68 and 69 into law, enacting the most significant overhaul of Georgia’s tort system since 2005.

The laws, enacted on April 21, 2025, are consequential for the product liability sector, introducing new procedural rules, damages limitations, and comprehensive regulation of third-party litigation funding. The reforms take effect in stages: most procedural and damages-related provisions of Senate Bill 68 – including changes to trial procedures, discovery, voluntary dismissal, and attorney’s fees – applied immediately upon enactment and affect both new and pending cases, while the new rules for the recovery of medical and healthcare expenses apply only to causes of action arising on or after the effective date (April 21, 2025).

Senate Bill 69’s main regulatory requirements for litigation financiers, including registration and prohibitions, become effective January 1, 2026, while new rules allowing the discovery of litigation funding agreements (Section 3) took effect on April 21, 2025, applying to new cases and contracts from that date forward.

According to Governor Kemp, the legislation addresses an “out-of-balance legal environment” and “levels the playing field in our courtrooms, bans hostile foreign powers from taking advantage of consumers and legal proceedings, aims to stabilize insurance costs for businesses and consumers, increases transparency and fairness, and ensures Georgia continues to be the best place to live, work, and raise a family.”

Lieutenant Governor Burt Jones emphasized that “these are not anti-lawyer or pro-insurance bills, these are pro-Georgia bills.”

The new laws are designed to address Georgia’s “$1,415 annual ‘tort tax’ paid by each resident” and the estimated loss of nearly 135,000 jobs annually due to excessive tort costs, with direct impact on companies facing product liability exposure.

Key provisions impacting product liability litigation

1. Procedural reforms in civil litigation

• Trifurcation of Liability and Damages (Bill 68 § 8): In high-stakes product liability cases (ie, those involving bodily injury or wrongful death with more than $150,000 at issue), any party may now demand trials to be divided into three distinct phases: liability (including apportionment of fault), compensatory damages, and punitive damages/attorney’s fees. This structure allows product manufacturers to focus the jury’s attention on liability before any discussion of damages, reducing the risk of prejudicial “anchoring” and helping ensure a fairer assessment of fault.

• Elimination of Double Recovery of Attorney’s Fees (Bill 68 § 4): The new law “closes a misused loophole that allowed plaintiff[s’] counsel to recover their fees twice.” Previously, a party could recover attorney’s fees under multiple statutory provisions for the same case, potentially resulting in a windfall. Now, unless a statute allows for duplicate recovery, only a single award of attorney’s fees, costs, or expenses is permitted for the same action. This change helps reduce the financial exposure for defendants in product liability actions.

• Restrictions on Voluntary Dismissal During Trial (Bill 68 § 3): Plaintiffs can no longer voluntarily dismiss and refile cases mid-trial, a tactic sometimes used to seek more favorable venues or to reset litigation against manufacturers after significant defense investment.

• Motion to Dismiss and Discovery Stay (Bill 68 § 2): Defendants, including product manufacturers, may now file a motion to dismiss instead of an answer, with discovery automatically stayed until the motion is resolved or an answer is filed. Courts must rule within 90 days after briefing, streamlining early resolution of meritless claims and reducing unnecessary discovery costs.

2. Damages and evidentiary reforms

• Limiting “Phantom Damages” (Bill 68 § 7): The legislation prevents plaintiffs from recovering damages for amounts that were billed by service providers but never paid or that were written off by insurance providers, thereby ensuring that awards for medical expenses reflect only the actual economic loss. Critically, defendants can present evidence of what was paid or required to be paid for medical care to contrast the higher amounts billed but never paid, as commonly presented in court. This is particularly significant in product liability cases, where inflated medical bills have historically driven up verdicts.

• Discovery of Medical Care Arrangements (Bill 68 § 7): Information about “letters of protection” and similar agreements between plaintiffs and providers, including referral sources, terms, and any sale of accounts receivable, is now “relevant and discoverable.” This transparency helps product manufacturers challenge the legitimacy and value of claimed medical expenses.

• Non-Economic Damages Presentation (Bill 68 § 1): Counsel is now prohibited from putting a number on non-economic damages until “after the close of evidence and at the time of [plaintiff’s] first opportunity to argue the issue of damages (S.B. 68 § 1(c)(1)).” Any request must be “rationally related to the evidence of noneconomic damages.” This measure “stops the use of anchoring tactics” and prevents the use of artificial benchmarks – such as referencing corporate profits or unrelated large numbers – to influence jury awards in product liability trials. It is important to note that anchoring the presentation of non-economic damages does not cap the amount of money a jury may award.

3. Litigation funding regulation and disclosure

• Discovery of Litigation Funding Agreements (Bill 69 § 3): The law now provides that, for litigation financing agreements involving $25,000 or more in funding, the existence and the terms and conditions of such agreements entered into on or after April 21, 2025 are subject to discovery in civil actions. This is especially relevant in product liability cases, which often attract significant third-party funding.

• Comprehensive Regulation of Litigation Funders (Bill 69 § 2): Effective January 1, 2026, all litigation financiers operating in Georgia must register with the state, disclosing ownership and any criminal convictions. Registration is barred for those associated with foreign adversaries, and violations are felonies punishable by up to five years in prison and/or a $10,000 fine. This law heavily regulates third-party litigation funding or financing for potential plaintiffs.

• Restrictions on Litigation Financiers (Bill 69 § 2): The new legislation amends Title 7 of the Official Code of Georgia to prohibit funders from “direct[ing], or mak[ing] any decisions with respect to, the course of any civil action, administrative proceeding, legal claim, or other legal proceeding for which such litigation financier has provided litigation financing, or any settlement or other disposition thereof.” They may not receive more than the plaintiff’s net recovery after fees and costs, pay or accept referral fees, engage in false advertising, or require the use of specific service providers.

• Mandatory Disclosures (Bill 69 § 2): Litigation funding contracts must include clear, bold disclosures regarding cancellation rights, the funder’s lack of control over the case, and the consumer’s right to change legal representatives. The law prevents funders from exerting undue influence over litigation.

• Indemnification and Liability (Bill 69 § 2): Funders that provide $25,000 or more in litigation financing are required to cover funded parties for any adverse costs, attorney’s fees, damages, or sanctions that may be imposed against them in the legal action. This provision is particularly relevant in high-value product liability litigation, where adverse cost awards can be substantial.

Impact on product liability defendants and insurers

For product manufacturers and their insurers, these reforms offer significant new tools to challenge inflated damages, limit abusive litigation tactics, and help ensure greater transparency regarding third-party funding. Georgia’s approach to litigation funding is now among the most comprehensive in the nation.

Action items for product liability stakeholders

Stakeholders can consider:

• Reviewing ongoing and future litigation: Assess current and upcoming product liability cases for compliance with new procedural and evidentiary rules.
• Evaluating litigation funding arrangements: Ensure all third-party funding agreements in product liability matters meet the new disclosure and registration requirements.
• Updating internal policies: Revise litigation and claims management protocols to reflect the new statutory requirements and discovery rules, particularly regarding damages evidence and third-party funding.

DLA Piper’s Products Liability team has deep experience in mass tort litigation. For more information about how Georgia’s Tort Reform may impact your business, please contact any of the authors or your DLA Piper relationship attorney.