>>>If you're the individual harmed by a big company, would you take the risk of suing knowing that they'll bring as many lawyers as it takes to beat you and then you've got to pay for them.
>
>Personally I think legal cost awards should be up to the judge. If two similar entities square off, the loser should expect to cover all costs. If a giant takes on the small guy or vice versa and the small guy loses, the judge can assess whether the case had any justification and may decide not to impose costs at all, e.g. if an insurance company refused to budge in a grey area and a judicial decision is the only option left to the desperate patient. In most cases partial costs are awarded, especially if the judge considers that both sides might have tried harder to settle the thing.
>
>FWIW I have some personal knowledge of this: in 2010 in the US I was subject to a frivolous patent law suit. It was cheaper to settle the thing than to pay up to $1M in law costs, even though they could not possibly win. There were at least 10 others in the same boat sued at the same time by the same patent troll who knew that it doesn't matter whether you have a case: eventually everybody would settle before it got before a jury when the real costs start racking up. FWIW a US judge can award legal costs in "exceptional" cases, and might have in mine, but the real cost is the distraction. More certainty about legal costs would have prevented all these companies being distracted by somebody who doesn't need to have a case to make a buck.

No question this kind of stuff is a problem here. I've seen my husband's company forced by their insurance companies to settle suits without merit because it was cheaper.

I think letting the judge decide is a pretty good idea because, as always, there's nuance here.

Tamar