This seems to misunderstand the concept of settlement.

A settlement is always going to be less than you are entitled to as a matter of right assuming everything you claim is true, otherwise, there's no purpose in settling rather than disputing the claims.

> Instead we get a system where the total damage amount is often less than the company's profits on their illegal activity.

There rarely is illegal activity established on the way to a settlement; yes, you could often get far more if you went to trial and proved illegal activity, but that would always be a significant delay, always add significant expense that might not be covered in a fees award (because costs and attorneys’ fees aren't automatically awarded to winning parties, that’s a separate fight that may or may not be won), and might fail entirely leaving you with nothing at all.