This is 100% incorrect. The loser doesn't have to pay an unlimited amount of money to the winner. If I do a lawsuit against Google and they spend $10 billion on it then I don't need to pay then $10 billion. The judge awards a reasonable amount.
Also, empirically, there are a whole lot more frivolous lawsuits in the US. In many cases, like with patents, this is basically extortion enabled by the legal system. We sue you which means that you will have to spend at least $10000 on your defense even if you win, or we can settle for $1000.
There is a reason why virtually all modern democracies except the US use loser pays.
> Also, empirically, there are a whole lot more frivolous lawsuits in the US.
"Frivolous" is not an objective descriptor and, therefore, this is not a statement which can be made empirically. At any rate, a higher rate of meritless lawsuits is an intentionally-accepted cost of minimizing the disincentive to pursue potentially meritorious lawsuits.
This is a value difference between the USA and countries that use loser pays.
> If I do a lawsuit against Google and they spend $10 billion on it then I don't need to pay then $10 billion.
Unless the lawyers Google spends billions on can convince the judge that those expenses were reasonably necessary to effectively prosecute the case -- and, incidentally, lawyers that are more proficient at convincing judges that their fees are reasonable will, have higher fees.
> There is a reason why virtually all modern democracies except the US use loser pays.
Yes, becaue most modern democracies value avoidance of private legal action more and effective venue of redress of legitimate disputes less than the US. Loser pays is a method of disincentivizing filing suits in general (it increases the expected costs for the plaintiff, particularly) as well as tilting the balance toward deeper-pockets litigants generally.
Reading your comment here makes it clear that you won't be convinced by any form of logic, but hopefully it helps some other readers:
> Unless the lawyers Google spends billions on can convince the judge that those expenses were reasonably necessary to effectively prosecute the case -- and, incidentally, lawyers that are more proficient at convincing judges that their fees are reasonable will, have higher fees.
This has never ever happened and will never ever happen for blatantly obvious reasons. If you think judges can be convinced of such ridiculous ideas by a sufficiently high paid lawyers we better just throw the whole legal system out of the window.
> Loser pays is a method of disincentivizing filing suits in general (it increases the expected costs for the plaintiff, particularly) as well as tilting the balance toward deeper-pockets litigants generally.
This is incorrect. Loser pays disincentivizes meritless lawsuits. If the plaintiff thinks he will lose, then the expected amount he has to pay is higher in a loser pays system. If the plaintiff thinks he will win the expected amount he will pay is lower in a loser pays system. Therefore loser pays incentivizes reasonable lawsuits compared to the US system.
Also, empirically, there are a whole lot more frivolous lawsuits in the US. In many cases, like with patents, this is basically extortion enabled by the legal system. We sue you which means that you will have to spend at least $10000 on your defense even if you win, or we can settle for $1000.
There is a reason why virtually all modern democracies except the US use loser pays.