As opposed to the current system, where people without much money can't risk suing a company with deep pockets because they don't have the money for a lawyer.
If you have a solid case any good lawyer will take the case for a share of what you win - they won't win all such cases, but they have enough confidence in winning most that they can afford to accept a cases will be done without getting paid. However if there is loser pays lawyers cannot do this unless they either take a much larger share for the winnings (thus making it not worth anyone's time) so they can cover the lawyer fees when they lose a case they thought was obvious, or they need to warn potential clients there is risk they have to pay a lot of money on a loss.
Either way loser pays makes it more risky for a poor person to sue.
Money obviously is a factor in any case. But, if you hire a lawyer, you at least have control of the costs. "Loser pays" means you pay for the company's Big Law outside counsel if you lose.
It could just be capped at the lower of what the two legal teams charge. Both should have to submit their bills to the court, whichever charged less is the cap on what the loser has to pay for the other party's legal fees. That way each party is at most on the hook for twice what they paid their own legal team, assuming no other damages or penalties.
This is gameable (for instance by disclosing millions of unrelated pages of content during discovery). All you really need is for the judge to look at how much each legal team charged for what and make a ruling on what's reasonable for the loser to pay and what isn't.
