Not exactly true. In the US, if you prove a lawsuit, but had no damages, you are always entitled to nominal damages, i.e., $1. Sometimes people want to sue on principal but suffered no damage. Wasn't there a case that Trump won where he only got $1? Or was that someone else I am thinking of?
I like the notion of loser pays, in libel and in all cases. Most cases are governed by state laws, and so you'd need 50 states to change their laws to accomplish that system.
Now, the big change that needs to be made, and that requires the Supreme Court to revisit its prior rulings (as Justice Thomas suggested) is to get rid of the extra requirements that have to be proven if the plaintiff is a public figure. The Court held that because the first amendment was so important, there needed to be special protections for the media from libel suits. So they decreed that with public figures, it has to be shown that the defendant had actual malice toward the person who was libeled. Printing false information wasn't enough. That was totally legislating from the bench. Get rid of that requirement, which does not exist in the UK, and the press will instantly become a lot more honest.
I was speaking specifically about libel laws. In the US you need to prove the libel. In the UK the burden of proof is on the defense instead.
“The 1964 case New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, however, radically changed the nature of libel law in the United States by establishing that public officials could win a suit for libel only when they could prove the media outlet in question knew either that the information was wholly and patently false or that it was published “with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not”.”
And the case you are talking about was Trump vs the NFL when he owned the USFL New Jersey Generals and was an antitrust case. Trump argued the NFL was a monopoly.
He won the case but was awarded $1
There is an ESPN 60 for 60 about it called “small potatoes”