to be fair , if understand correctly , the court here is more of an arbitrator/mediator . the decision of the court has no power itself , but rather it acts as a decision made by an actor that is not influenced by either party , thus , if a decision is made , both companies are expected to respect it , or face consequences (see below)

from my understanding , the protection companies have an economic incentive to go through this system , as not engaging leaves the company to loose their status with other protection companies . being an actor in a corpo war , especially for the company which took that route instead of settling in a court , is a big economic and reputational hazard . even companies which are not directly involved might join , to ensure any other company which would like to take the war option next is dissuaded further .

furthermore , customers may find being protected from punishment for wrongdoing to be not a good offer , both because the communist thing called morals and because it means you are more likely to be affected by a war between corporations

for cases with less malice , all parties are also incentivised to settle the case before it escalates , so if you stumbled and broke your neighbours car window , you can just pay for the repair , or even just part of it , depending on what your relation with your neighbor is .

note : this is simply my interpretation of what that person believes in , I do not share these beliefs . I have stayed away from considering any specific flaws to reduce bias