I thought you had to show actual damages to sue in this context? How does a state assume the role of the people transgressed and then not pass any money from th

I thought you had to show actual damages to sue in this context? How does a state assume the role of the people transgressed and then not pass any money from the suit onto the people impacted? So tired of governments using people as a means of attacking corporations only to not provide the people with relief. Otherwise, it needs to be criminal. But, they can't unless a specific individual is found to have broken the law, but that's what the layers of separation and plausible deniability are for. How does any of this benefit the people?