COURTS CREATED THE TORT SYSTEM TO PROVIDE compensation for injury and to deter injurious conduct. Two distinctive but related types of recent litigation, however, depart from this traditional compensation-deterrence model in favor of a regulatory model. In one set of litigation, the primary goal of the litigation is to prohibit certain business practices or restrict the manufacture or sale of goods or services in the same way as if there had been legislation or administrative rule making; here, redress for injury is secondary to obtaining a settlement, monetary judgment, or injunctive order issued by a court. This use of litigation is described as “regulation through litigation.” To be sure, in addition to injunctive relief, such suits may seek substantial monetary damages. The dominant purpose of the damage claim, however, is to pose a sufficient financial threat to manufacturers and sellers as to induce them into settling the claims by agreeing to change their product or their method of conducting business. The second type of litigation that falls under “regulation through litigation” aims to generate substantial contingency fees through effectuation of a wealth transfer. What is distinctive about this type of litigation is that the wealth transfer is linked to a regulatory outcome. Indeed, the regulatory outcome is the means of gaining the wealth transfer.