This is like saying "Don't bother contacting support, raise a ruckus on Twitter or contact an insider if you have a problem with <insert tech company>."
Yes, maybe maybe public embarrassment, Twitter, and insiders are the most practical, effective ways of resolving issues today, but that's not the way it should be.
Lawsuits are part of a negotiation. Everyone wins if the parties can settle out of court. In most lawsuits, the court is a bogeyman: you’re posturing to show you’ll win and that the other side should capitulate before wasting everyone’s time and embarrassing itself in a public forum.
> counsel should be advising they use the courts
Counsel should recommend what works. New York’s courts work. But they work slowly.
> like saying "Don't bother contacting support, raise a ruckus on Twitter or contact an insider
No, it’s saying consider doing all those things.
Sorry, I was using a different kind of "should" - you were thinking of the pragmatic, I was speaking philosophically. In a hypothetical, just, efficient, utopian society, I think that world would be a better place if lawsuits were judged and enforced more consistently and more quickly, and if people in that society chose to avoid using public embarrassment as leverage to circumvent the courts. Obviously, we don't live in that world, so the pragmatic approach is to use the tools that are most functional. I wish that we could change our actual society to conform more closely to that hypothetical one.
Your leverage is in embarrassing them. Counsel should be able to advise you of ways to do this.