Third-party litigation funding (TPLF) is widely viewed outside of Canada and the United States as indispensable to a viable collective litigation regime. Australia, for example, has a robust TPLF industry that has funded hundreds of class actions.2Australia Law Reform Commission, Integrity, Fairness and Efficiency – An Inquiry Into Class Action Proceedings and Third-Party Litigation Funders, Final Report (December 2018), available online: https://www.alrc.gov.au/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/alrc_report_134_webaccess_2.pdf; V Morabito & M Duffy, "An Australian Perspective on the Involvement of Commercial Litigation Funders in Class Actions" (2020) 3 New Zealand L Rev 377; J Kalajdzic, P Cashman and A Longmoore, 'Justice for Profit: A Comparative Analysis of Australian, Canadian and U.S. Third Party Litigation Funding' (2013) 61 The American Journal of Comparative Law 93. TPLF has been addressed by the European Commission in its Recommendations on collective redress3DIRECTIVE (EU) 2020/1828 OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL of 25 November 2020 on representative actions for the protection of the collective interests of consumers and repealing Directive 2009/22/EC, preamble 52 and Art. 10 ["EU Directive"]. and is the subject of much discussion in European academic circles.4See eg: A. Cordina, "Is It All That Fishy? A Critical Review of the Prevalent Concerns Surrounding Third Party Litigation Funding in Europe" (2022) 14 Erasmus Law Review 270; R P Mulheron, Third Party Funding, Class Actions, and the Question of Regulation" (2022) 1 Mass Claims Journal 5; S Voet, 'The Crux of the Matter: Funding and Financing Collective Redress Mechanisms' in B Hess, M Bergström and E Storskrubb (eds), EU Civil Justice. Current Issues and Future Outlook (Hart Publishing, Oxford 2016), pp 201–22; I Tzankova, 'Funding of Mass Disputes: Lessons from the Netherlands' (2012) 8 Journal of Law, Economics & Policy 549. In the absence of rules permitting lawyers to charge a contingency fee,5While contingency fees continue to be prohibited in most EU Member States, the United Kingdom permits contingency fees, or damages-based agreements, pursuant to s 58AA of the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990, c 41 (except in the case of opt-out class actions, per s 47C(8) of the Competition Act 1998, c 41). In Australia, as of 2020, the Victorian Parliament also permits contingency fees in a class actions context: Supreme Court Act 1986 (Vic), 110/1986, s. 33ZDA permits a plaintiff in a group action to apply for an order that legal costs payable to a law firm be calculated as a percentage of any award or settlement recovered in the action. complex, expensive litigation on behalf of litigants with small value claims requires external funding. Even where contingency fees are permitted, as is the case in all Canadian jurisdictions and in a handful of EU member states,6Estonia, Poland and Spain permit contingency fee arrangements, albeit subject to regulation. See Policy Department for Citizens' Rights and Constitutional Affairs, Collective Redress in the Member States of the European Union (2018) at 34, available online: https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/STUD/2018/608829/IPOL_STU(2018)608829_EN.pdf. the possibility of adverse costs and varying levels of risk tolerance and financial capacity among law firms still leave a gap for external funding. Legal expense insurance has had limited success.7After-the-Event Insurance has had a significant role in managing individual litigants' cost exposure in cost-shifting jurisdictions, but is not yet widely used in class actions: Willem H van Boom, "Juxtaposing BTE and ATE: the Role of the European Insurance Industry in Funding Civil Litigation" (2010) Oxford U Comp L Forum 1. Note that ATE policies are available to litigants before UK's Competition Appeal Tribunal, which has ruled that claimants may redact the premium payable under the policy when disclosing their litigation funding and ATE policies to avoid giving the opposing party and unfair tactical advantage: Coll v Alphabet Inc & Ors [2022] CAT 6. While the commercial TPLF industry continues to grow in many EU collective redress regimes, its not-for-profit cousin has received far less attention. Yet, the latest EU Directive envisions the possibility of public funding "to ensure that the costs of the proceedings related to representative actions do not prevent qualified entities from effectively exercising their right to seek [injunctive and redress] measures."8EU Directive, above note 3, Art. 20.