If the lack of gag clauses means there will be earlier intervention, then there will be fewer cases that are so bad that they need litigation: a good thing (perhaps this is what you mean by "benefit many").
Ones that, despite the removal of the gag clause, become so egregious that a successful lawsuit results, will still be subject to the same calculus: restitution + some penalty that may be higher, same, or lower.
So the victims should suffer no loss: any restitution would be decided the same way as without the gag rule.
* In a just system the penalty should not go to the victim but into the general fund, as punishment is really the responsibility of government, not private actors, and in awarding punishment the jury is acting as part of the court, thus as an organ of government. Giving it to the victim is second best, and better than not assessing punishment at all, and having these fines stapled to private cases is itself a good idea. But they shouldn't go to the victim -- if the restitution is inadequate, address that instead.
It's OK that any lawyer commission includes the total sum, as reasonable restitution alone may not be a large enough figure for a lawyer to take the case.
If reporters are going to write stories about it anyway, might as well fight.
Restrictions on talking about an event is standard in most settlements as part of the “paying someone to disappear” solution to illegal working conditions. Presumably the “just shut up about it” has some value to the company which would now be lost.