One improvement is for the loser to pay the winner's legal bills up to the amount that the loser paid on his legal bills.
This makes big cos more risk averse - not a win, but likely no different in practice to the current US litigation landscape.
But it also makes them consider their relationship with Rest of World more carefully.
On top of that the burden should be made equal by having the CEO participate when I am forced to, or to personally discusd with their lawyers.
In other words, a trial should be for the company a similar pain in the ass as it is for me.
I think it'd encourage companies to only sue, if the expected value from winning, was large in comparison to one's litigation costs times two.
Which seems ok to me
Tricky case where both sides have a legitimate reason to believe they are in the right - no costs awarded. Borderline barratry - full costs awarded.
One FAANG sues another - full costs awarded to the winner. Owner of a small corner shop wins against a FAANG - full costs. Other way round, no costs.
Also to set appropriate levels on what costs can be awarded (kinda like the German model). You want to spend 10M on suing a street market stallholder? Knock yourself out, costs awarded = 10k.