Not directly related, but personal bankruptcies aren't a thing here. If a debt can't be paid, it goes to recovery proceedings, and will stay like that until it expires in (generally) 15-25 years.

Almost every country except the US uses agencies of their executive branch of government to enforce most labor, housing, discrimination, harassment, and civil rights laws. In the United States the enforcement of such laws is often split, with only very serious violations being handled by an executive agency and the more common violations simply creating a cause of action for a civil suit.

Even if the amount a loser has to pay is limited to what they themselves paid for their own attorneys it would still greatly discourage many people from bringing suits over labor, housing, discrimination, harassment, and civil rights against anyone who has significantly more resources than they do. If they spend a lot to get a top attorney and lose then they have to pay a lot. If they spend little on an attorney to limit the maximum they might have to pay then they have to worry that the other side will out lawyer them.

The point about potentially discouraging lawsuits has a grain of truth in it, but not more than a grain. In the US you'd have to pay $X regardless of whether you win, and with the loser pays system you pay $0 if you win and $2X if you lose. It is at most a factor of two. The reality is that most people who can't afford $2X also can't afford $X. Consider what you get in return: (1) if you're quite sure you can win, you can sue at no cost (2) big companies can't just bully people into a settlement (like they attempted in this story). The net effect is that poor people who are clearly in the right gain the ability to sue, and rich entities who are clearly in the wrong lose the ability to extort settlements from poor people, but poor people who can afford $X but can't afford $2X lose the ability to sue if they aren't sure they can win. A very good trade-off if you ask me.

That just gives financial unsupervised power to the judge, without any clear definition of involved terms. Which doesn't really sound like a good idea.

What I don't see is how anyone who is inherently subject to popular opinion can possibly rule impartially in the interests of justice, but that's a different question.