Slogans such as "We fight for millions" or "Get the settlement you deserve" do more than attract potential clients, they reset expectations. Constant exposure to these messages convinces jurors that multi-million-dollar outcomes are not only common but also deserved in nearly every case. Instead of weighing damages based strictly on evidence, jurors often come into deliberations with inflated benchmarks already in mind.
The Rising Tide of Plaintiff Lawyer Advertising: How Saturation Ads are Shaping Jury Perceptions, Litigation Culture, and the Cost of Business
Slogans such as "We fight for millions" or "Get the settlement you deserve" do more than attract potential clients, they reset expectations. Constant exposure to these messages convinces jurors that multi-million-dollar outcomes are not only common but also deserved in nearly every case. Instead of weighing damages based strictly on evidence, jurors often come into deliberations with inflated benchmarks already in mind.
For businesses, this shift is more than rhetorical, it 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 a built-in pressure on defendants to settle for more than the claim is worth, simply to avoid the possibility of 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 the cost of defending inflated claims, before a verdict is ever reached, forces many companies into settlements that distort the true value of litigation.
Over time, these outcomes shift what jurors view as "normal." Each excessive verdict feeds into the public consciousness, raising the baseline for the next jury. What was once considered extraordinary quickly becomes the expected measure of justice. This cycle not only undermines predictability in the courtroom but also creates long-term economic drag as businesses face higher premiums, fewer coverage options, and greater financial risk.
The consequences extend far beyond the boardroom. Industries that depend heavily on liability insurance, such as healthcare, transportation, construction, and hospitality, see costs ripple down to consumers in the form of higher prices, reduced services, and in some cases, fewer choices. In this sense, plaintiff advertising is not just shaping juror perceptions; it is reshaping the cost of doing business in America.
The Evolution of Plaintiff Lawyer Advertising: From Stigma to Saturation
For decades, lawyer marketing was considered unethical. This changed in 1977 with the U.S. Supreme Court's landmark decision in Bates v. State Bar of Arizona, 433 U.S. 350 (1977), which recognized attorney advertising as protected commercial speech under the First Amendment. At first, only a handful of firms experimented with TV and print ads, and those who did often faced ridicule within the legal profession.
Over the decades, however, norms shifted. Entrepreneurial plaintiff lawyers discovered that advertising was not only permissible, but also enormously effective. With contingency fees eliminating upfront costs to clients, law firms could cast a wide net, appealing directly to accident victims who might not otherwise pursue claims. What was once disparaged as "ambulance chasing" became rebranded as community advocacy. Today, plaintiff lawyer advertising is a multi-million-dollar industry, fueled by television, billboards, radio, social media, and increasingly sophisticated digital marketing.
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. According to the American Tort Reform Association (ATRA) in states like California, trial lawyer advertising exceeds even restaurant promotions, underscoring just how dominant legal ads have become in the media landscape. Specifically, one report found that over $34 million was spent on lawyer advertisements across top California media markets in the first half of 2022, surpassing many other advertising categories entirely.[i]
Additional research by ATRA found legal service providers spent upwards of $2.5 billion on 26.9 million ads in 2024, including significant increases in television, radio and outdoor advertising. TV ads in 2023 had with 16.4 million placements – a 44% increase from 2017. Radio ads surged to over 6.8 million in 2024 – a 261% jump from 2017 levels. Outdoor advertising, including billboards, rose by over 260%. Advertising spending has gone up 39% since 2020, partly due to higher digital costs.[ii] Industry experts have voiced concern that the growing number of legal advertisements, often supported by third-party litigation funders, will continue to increase abuse of the legal system and derail potential settlements.[iii]
A closer look at spending in high visibility states only underscores the true level of saturation:
- Florida leads with $886 million spent on local legal ads (2017-2021);[iv] Texas follows at $603 million[v].
- In California in 2023, more than $238 million was spent on local ads across 2.3 million spots- an increase in ad spend of 66% and a 21% rise in the number of ads since 2019.[vi]
- In Pennsylvania, outdoor (billboard) advertising surged by 62% compared to 2019, amounting to approximately $84 million in a single year.[vii]
The issue with saturation is that it shapes assumptions. Jurors, after years of exposure conditioning them to distrust insurers, may enter the jury box already predisposed to assume bad faith- even when evidence points otherwise.
Third-party litigation funding (TPLF), where investors bankroll lawsuits in return for part of the settlement, has turbocharged this model. TPLF assets under management reached $16 billion in 2024, with roughly 74% allocated to legal budgets, including plaintiff recruitment via ads.[viii] This influx of capital means law firms can sustain expensive and ubiquitous advertising campaigns, sometimes creating urgency and overpromising outcomes to drive mass litigation.
Insurance Companies as Villains Painted as Villains
One of the most consistent themes in plaintiff advertising is the vilification of insurance companies. Ads frequently portray insurers as callous, profit-driven corporations that deny or minimize claims, leaving vulnerable individuals to fend for themselves. The narrative is simple, memorable, and emotionally resonant: "They don't care about you, but we do." Caught up in the fray are businesses.
This messaging has a cumulative effect. Jurors drawn from the general population arrive in 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.
A national survey conducted by DRI (Defense Research Institute) revealed:
- 59% of respondents would lean toward the plaintiff in a lawsuit with an insurer,
- Only 10% would favor the insurance company
- 20% claimed neutrality.[ix]
This study clearly reflects a widespread predisposition to side with individuals over insurers. The pattern is especially stark among younger adults (18-29), where 71% favored individuals over insurance companies.[x]
This dynamic is particularly pronounced in so-called "judicial hellholes," which are defined as jurisdictions identified by the American Tort Reform Foundation as hotspots for excessive litigation and runaway jury awards. Heavy concentrations of plaintiff advertising in these venues reinforce the anti-insurer narratives and prime jurors to "teach a lesson" through damages, regardless of the actual harm proved at trial.
The result is also a disproportionate number of nuclear 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.
Inflated Expectations of Compensation
Advertising also reinforces the idea that large verdicts and settlements are normal, even inevitable. Slogans like "We fight for millions" or "Get the settlement you deserve" create unrealistic expectations about case values. When jurors hear about a plaintiff who received a seven-figure settlement in a television commercial, they carry that benchmark into deliberations, often disregarding actual damages evidence in favor of what they perceive as "justice."
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.
The consequences ripple outward. Large corporations may be able to absorb or insure against these verdicts, but small and midsized businesses sometimes cannot. A single jury award influenced by inflated expectations can threaten a company's survival, forcing layoffs, bankruptcy, or closure. Even when claims settle beyond trial, negotiations are distorted by jurors' recalibrated sense of "normal." Pressuring businesses to pay more than the case is reasonably worth simply to avoid the risk of a runaway verdict.
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.
The broader economic impact is also undeniable. Industries that rely heavily on liability coverage- construction, transportation, healthcare, hospitality- are especially vulnerable. As premiums rise and retention levels climb, businesses are left with difficult choices: pass costs into 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 all together.
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 uninsured or underinsured individuals. The aggregate effect is a drag on the economy, discouraging entrepreneurship and increasing the costs of good and services.
Rebranding "Ambulance Chasers" Become "Champions of Justice"
Another striking development is the shift in cultural perception. Plaintiff lawyers who once endured scorn as opportunistic "ambulance chasers" are now often cast as champions of the underdog. Through relentless advertising, they have succeeded in positioning themselves as protectors of the community, wearing the "white hat" in contrast to the supposedly heartless inductance industry.
This rebranding is not accidental. It reflects a deliberate strategy to align plaintiff lawyers with populist values of fairness, justice, and accountability. The irony is that while plaintiff firms decry insurance companies as profit-driven, their own advertising is fundamentally about driving revenue, often at the expense of systematic stability.
Time for Action
Businesses have a vested interest in curbing the influence of plaintiff advertising, as they ultimately bear the brunt of rising litigation costs. Business coalitions should push for greater transparency in legal advertising, including disclosures about outcomes and fees. Just as pharmaceutical companies must include disclaimers in their ads, plaintiff firms should be required to provide context about case results and the risks of litigation.
Businesses can also support legislative reform efforts aimed at regulating litigation advertising, particularly when ads are misleading or prey on vulnerable populations. Advocacy groups should highlight the economic toll of inflated verdicts on small businesses and consumers, reframing the debate as one of fairness and sustainability.
Insurers, for their part, must do more to tell their side of the story. Too often, they remain silent while plaintiff lawyers dominate the airwaves, Carriers should invest in public education campaigns that explain how insurance works, why claims must be evaluated carefully, and how rising litigation costs affect premiums. By humanizing the industry and emphasizing its role in protecting individuals and businesses, insurers can counteract the negative stereotypes perpetuated by plaintiff advertising.
Finally, defense trial lawyers have a critical role to play. They must not only defend cases in court but also advocate and reeducate. Defense counsel should engage in thought leadership, writing, and speaking about the dangers of unchecked plaintiff advertising. They must also adapt their trial strategies to address juror bias directly, confronting the "insurance villain" narrative with facts, evidence, and compelling storytelling.
Equally important, defense lawyers must re-establish their own credibility as guardians of fairness. That means emphasizing professionalism, civility, and the integrity of the civil justice system. By modeling the values of fairness and balance, the defense bar can help recalibrate public perception.
Conclusion
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 of compensation, and encouraging consumers to lawyer up immediately after an accident, these ads are distorting jury pools, driving up costs, and destabilizing the insurance market.
Left unchecked, the cycle of ever-rising verdicts and settlements will continue, with cascading effects on businesses, consumers, and the civil justice system itself. But this outcome is not inevitable. By pushing for transparency, engaging in public education, and reclaiming the narrative, the business community, insurance industry, and defense bar can restore balance and fairness to the system.
The stakes are high. If defense lawyers, insurers and businesses fail to respond, plaintiff advertising will continue to define the conversation, and the costs of silence will be borne by all of us.
____________________________________
[i] Legal Services Advertising in the United States- 2020-2024 (March 5, 2025) American Tort Reform Association (ATRA) https://atra.org/white-paper-and-repo/legal-services-ads-2020-2024
[ii] Jimenez-Sanchez, Kassandra. Legal Advertising & Third Party Litigation Funding Fuel Rise in Insurance Costs. (2nd June 2025) Reinsurance News. https://www.reinsurancene.ws/legal-advertising-third-party-litigation-funding-fuel-rise-in-insurance-costs-triple-i/
[iii] Jimenez-Sanchez, Kassandra. Legal Advertising & Third Party Litigation Funding Fuel Rise in Insurance Costs. (2nd June 2025) Reinsurance News. https://www.reinsurancene.ws/legal-advertising-third-party-litigation-funding-fuel-rise-in-insurance-costs-triple-i/
[iv] Legal Services Advertising in the United States- 2020-2024 (March 5, 2025) American Tort Reform Association (ATRA) https://atra.org/white-paper-and-repo/legal-services-ads-2020-2024
[v] James, Edgar. Texas Among the Top 3 States for Spending on Trial Lawyer Advertisements. (Mar. 23, 2022). Dallas Express. https://dallasexpress.com/business-markets/texas-among-the-top-3-states-for-spending-on-trial-lawyer-advertisements/
[vi] Legal Services Advertising-California- 2019-2023. (March 19, 2024). ATRA. https://atra.org/white-paper-and-repo/legal-services-advertising-california-2019-2023/
[vii] Buchdahl, Michael. Lawyer Billboard Wars- How is that Still a Thing? (May 30, 2025). Marketing Attorney Blog- LP Magazine. https://www.marketingattorney.com/lp-magazine-lawyer-billboard-wars-how-is-that-still-a-thing/
[viii] Wotters, Loretta. Triple I's New Issues Brief Suggests Link Between Attorney Advertising, Mass Torts, Third Party Litigation Funding and Rising Insurance Costs. (May 29, 2025). Insurance Information Institute. https://www.iii.org/press-release/triple-is-new-issues-brief-suggests-link-between-attorney-advertising-mass-torts-third-party-litigation-funding-and-rising-insurance-costs-052925
[ix] Ruquet, Mark E. Survey: Insurers Face Bias Among Potential Jurors. (January 11, 2013). PropertyCasualty360.
[x] Smith, Mike. Insurance Agencies Face Juror Bias in Court. (Mar. 19, 2013). PL Risk Blog.
