Firstly, this system provides a person who knows of such duplicity with the illegal choice to make affected citizens aware they are being deceived, or the more inequitable alternative of allowing an unlawful practice to continue untrammeled. Often in cases of widespread corporate wrongdoing, the facts are deliberately couched in esoteric phraseology which renders the affected consumers entirely unable to form a clear picture of their own rights and obligations. Therefore the continuance of square business dealings is to some extent reliant on the willingness of citizen activists to broadcast their discoveries to those impacted by chicanery, so that due action may be initiated.
Secondly, the courts' strict requirements for standing to sue are partially to blame for this quandary. The case of Organic Seed Growers and Trade Ass'n, et al. v. Monsanto, No. 13-303, is an illustration of this. The controversy arose from GMO seed company Monsanto's pattern of prosecuting organic farmers for alleged patent infringement because of cross-pollination from neighboring fields and other forms of inadvertent contamination. The Association and co-plaintiffs sought an injunction on behalf of their 300,000 growers seeking an injunction against this harassment, but the Federal Circuit dismissed the case because Monsanto had never threatened suit against or demanded payment from the Association itself. Not only did this decision hamper any relief in these particular circumstances, it ended one of the only unquestionably safe means to coordinate legal action. Since an organization's right to protect its interests in its own name were thus denied, such institutions are effectively compelled to reach out to individual members in order to organize court challenges - and thereby expose themselves to barratry charges.
Finally, the long-standing principle that neglect to report knowledge of a crime already (or about to be) committed also deepens the dilemma - especially where public officials have declined to act on a matter of grave public importance, such as the overreach of Monsanto or the pharmaceutical cartels. In many instances justice would never be served if injured parties were not made aware of their rights, leaving the unlucky fact-finder with the choice to become either the principal in an instance of barratry or an accessory after the fact in an instance of corporate chicanery. That action on these widespread issues is discouraged or even punished is deeply ironic. If the perpetrator of a common larceny were skillful enough to convince his victim, when his crime was discovered, that he was legally entitled to commit that felony - in such a case as that, any bystander who failed to intervene would doubtlessly find himself the recipient of universal censure for his disregard of basic justice. Cases of corporate fraud, wholesale denial of civil rights, or egregious injury are no different, and yet an observer who speaks out in those instances will be rewarded only with the fear of prosecution.
The prohibition on barratry will probably remain law for the foreseeable future, but simply because it is jurisprudence does not mean it is justice. In my opinion, something is fundamentally wrong with a judicial and legislative organization that has readily overturned or repealed policies such as the strict corporate liability doctrine or the Glass-Steagall banking responsibility law, but leaves this outdated provision on the books to the detriment of true social and economic equality