It’s not always but when there’s a huge difference in money and power it starts to look dubious. If I sue you for $1000, you may settle because that’s cheaper than getting a lawyer even if you’re innocent; at $100k, you’ll lawyer up and win. If a company is totally inappropriately automatically assumed to be more responsible than a person and given legal advantages, that’s even worse because the cost for the defendant is actually even higher!

You’ll note that this kind of unbalanced system is specifically mentioned early in the article:

> In many states, retailers do not have to return the money they collect if the cases are ultimately dismissed or the people are cleared. A Walmart executive, in a court deposition, acknowledged that the company did not follow up to check on whether people it sought money from had been convicted of shoplifting.

If Walmart has to pay costs every time they lost they’d be a LOT more discriminating about when to charge people.

It can be extortion, if it's a SLAPP

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic_lawsuit_against_publ...

I agree if cash isn't involved (like with a cease and desist), but threatening civil suit with the caveat that "we won't if you pay X dollars" sounds like textbook extortion.