American jurisprudence has always favored making sure "everyone gets their day in Court" to the point where trolls and professional litigants are ruining things.
I'm not assuming any such thing. I'm an attorney and understand the tradeoffs and I think society would be better off if these sorts of cases didn't waste everyone's time.
That said, it's hard for your small business to sue Google anyway.
The whole point of "Loser Pays" is to filter out the frivolous, weak, and marginal cases. But it also makes it easier to file the strong and meritorious cases, because you know you're going to win (eventually), and they'll pay for it.
Of course because the strong cases get settled out of Court, the overall effect is that a lot fewer cases will go to Court at all and this is generally a good thing (IMO). The Court system is overburdened, which means it can take months or years for meritorious cases to just get a hearing and trial. Prisoners can languish for years in prison without conviction of guilt, just awaiting trial.
Furthermore you have to think about the unseen costs. All those businesses that are never formed in the first place because of these legal tactics. My guess is that small businesses that are put out business by lawsuits are outnumbered 100:1 or more by potential businesses that never get past the planning stages.
Your confidence in the legal process' accuracy in sorting good cases from bad is greater than mine. Any case is risky, IMHO.
> The Court system is overburdened
I agree; it should be much better funded. It's denial of justice to everyone.