>2. Currently it is often use as a way to shape future laws. E.g. AirBnB sues some city against new law. Uber does the same. It's used to contest laws that are

>2. Currently it is often use as a way to shape future laws. E.g. AirBnB sues some city against new law. Uber does the same. It's used to contest laws that are believed to possibly be in violation of existing law. >3. The 2. case is very tricky. No doubt both sides will spend tons on legal fees, but outcome can be very arbitrary, not based on interpretation on current laws/. Huh? What's the outcome going to be based on if not on the current law? Unless you're specifically referring to common/civil law difference that makes no sense. >4. This system most likely benefit the most lawyers, as the benefit from the ambiguity. Maybe we should accept the fact, that not all conflicts can be solved in court room? E.g. city can pass stupid law that doesn't make sense (e.g. ban AirBnB) and nobody got right to sue because of that. The only exceptions should be conflict with upper law (e.g. no city can ban minority or pass law not to pay federal tax). It sounds like you're suggesting that cities should have significantly higher legislative powers not restricted by the courts? I must be misunderstanding, but in case I'm not... why?