Most writing about mass torts stops at the courthouse. The docket, the science, the settlement. What happens before any of that is a business with its own economics. How a claimant with a potential case becomes a signed retainer on a firm’s shelf does not get described in much detail by the people who run it.
Brian Beck runs it. He founded Typhon Interactive, which operates InjuryClaims.com, and both were acquired last year by Nexus7Media and Factua. Asked what the deal changed, he put access first:
The biggest change for us was access. We’re in rooms with firms and litigation partners that used to take years to reach, and now happen in a week. The people and their relationships here have moved the needle for us. The other is that I’ve got an accounting, technology and intake team behind me who are as invested as I am in scaling this business. We already knew how to buy media and acquire quality cases to our law firm partners. What we didn’t have was the organization around it.
I asked him seven questions in writing. His most useful answers are about intake and vendor diligence. If you buy claimant acquisition, or you are thinking about it, those are the reason to read this.
A note on what follows. The figures Beck cites for contact rates, sign rates, and cost comparisons are his own, drawn from his company’s campaigns. I have not independently verified them, and they are presented as his account of his business rather than as industry benchmarks. His answers appear as written, with promotional links removed and minor typographical corrections.
On what firms get wrong
Meldofsky: What do plaintiff firms most consistently get wrong when they buy claimant acquisition?
Beck: Intake and the feedback loop. Intake is the most important piece of the puzzle when you’re buying media for mass tort, class action, or mass arbitration.
If intake is doing its job, meaning calling, texting and emailing every lead and following up for a set number of days, we typically see a 40 percent contact rate and 15 to 20 percent lead to sign. If intake isn’t doing that, contact rates fall below 20 percent and sign rates drop to 5 percent or lower. That’s the difference between 20 good cases and 5 off the same spend. At volume that’s the whole economics of the campaign.
The other half is reporting back to the marketing vendor. If something isn’t working, we need to see it and change it on the spot. If something is working, we need to recognize it and scale it. We require daily reporting on lead and signed status for every lead, three times a week at the absolute minimum.
That adaptability matters in a space that moves this fast. A vendor who finds out a month later that half the file died at criteria review has already wasted the month.
On what to ask before signing
Meldofsky: For firms newer to this, what should they be asking a vendor before they sign? The questions that separate a serious operation from the rest.
Beck: The number one question: who is actually doing the media buying?
A large percentage of agencies outsource everything. Media buying, intake, all of it. That leaves them with almost no control over the process, and the firm inherits every bit of that. Compliance issues, because nobody’s reviewing the creative a claimant actually saw. Pricing issues, because there’s a margin stacked at every hand off. And ultimately fewer cases and lower quality cases, because the further you get from the buy, the less anyone knows why a claimant converted.
We own the entire ecosystem, internal media buyers through our Arizona intake center. When something’s wrong, I can fix it that day.
The second question is who’s handling intake, and how that shows up in the price. Intake is its own business unit. It’s not a free add on. If we’re doing it, that cost should be in the price per signed retainer. If the firm is doing their own intake, there should be a discount reflected in that price. Either way the firm should be able to see it. If a vendor can’t tell you which side of that line they’re on and what it’s worth, they haven’t priced their own business.
On mass arbitration
Meldofsky: Where do you see mass arbitration volume going over the next two years, and how does it differ from mass tort as a business?
Beck: The acquisition side of mass tort and mass arbitration is just as different as is the litigation.
In arbitration you’re signing hundreds or thousands of claimants, fast, fully digital. That’s a technology problem before it’s a media problem. Cost per acquisition runs much lower than mass tort. But the volume only works if the claimants are real. Our technology for mass arbitration allows every claimant to go through document uploads, driver’s license verification and contact info verification. Same process on every claim, every campaign. Speed without verification is how you end up with a file full of claims that die at criteria review.
I see the volume of firms getting involved in mass arbitration continuing to explode. Why? The predictability behind mass arbitration claims is similar to personal injury or class action and allows firms to allocate resources more efficiently.
On registering and disclosing
Meldofsky: InjuryClaims is a registered qualifying provider with The Florida Bar and names its firm partners publicly. Plenty of operators in this space do neither. Why did you decide to file and disclose?
Beck: If a firm wants to check us out before they agree to work with us, I encourage it. Registration with the Florida Bar puts our standards on the record so they don’t have to take my word for it. Firms that care how the claimant got to them find us. The ones shopping on price go elsewhere, and that’s fine.
InjuryClaims.com appears on The Florida Bar’s list of qualifying providers with current reports for 2026–2027, filed under Rule 4-7.22(d)(5). The list records that a provider has satisfied its annual reporting requirement. It is a registration, not an endorsement, and roughly eighty services appear on it. — DM
On AI citations
Meldofsky: You told me AI assistants are citing publisher pages in this space alongside each other. What are you seeing, and has it changed how you think about content?
Beck: We’re seeing InjuryClaims.com picked up in AI citations, most visibly in Gemini, more slowly across Claude, ChatGPT and the others. Bard PowerPort, hernia mesh, the social media cases, our class action coverage. A lot of our news articles surface when someone asks about case status or recent developments.
What’s interesting is who we’re cited alongside. Every one of these assistants is trying to solve a trust problem. They can’t afford to point a consumer at something wrong. So being pulled in next to established legal publications tells me the standards work is doing something beyond compliance.
It’s changed not just how we write but how we structure the sites end to end. Eligibility criteria, filing deadlines, defendant names, current case posture, stated plainly and easy to lift. If an assistant can’t pull a clean fact off the page, it won’t use the page.
Really it’s another avenue to reach consumers looking for this content or looking to connect with one of our partner firms. We’re treating it that way.
On 2028
Meldofsky: Two years out. What does claimant acquisition look like in 2028 that would surprise someone reading this today?
Beck: Search and social are still where the volume is, and I think that holds. But ChatGPT Ads went from a hundred million to a billion dollar run rate in about 200 days. I think marketing inside AI chat bots and AI content becomes the second channel that matters most, behind social.
On media buying itself, I believe by 2028 most of it will be AI run. Not fully autonomous, there’s still a human on it, but bidding, creative, everything in between adjusting in real time. The data analysis and the guess and test cycle that eats most of a buyer’s week goes away. That’s real efficiency.
On August 31, 2026, OpenAI announced that ChatGPT Ads had reached a $1 billion annualized revenue run rate in under 200 days from launch, not from a $100 million starting point. An annualized run rate projects current pace across a full year rather than reporting revenue booked. Beck answered these questions the following day. — DM
Brian Beck is President of Typhon Interactive, which operates InjuryClaims.com. Typhon and InjuryClaims were acquired by Nexus7Media and Factua in 2025.
Disclosure: InjuryClaims.com published a bylined article by David Meldofsky the day before this interview was conducted. No payment was exchanged in either direction.