The system favors corporations as they have tons of money and they know that Youtubers are not willing to sue. If you want to file a DMCA complaint, then you are saying under oath that you made a good faith investigation on the Fair Use compliance of the material that you filed the complaint on. Filing a DMCA complaint on a video that did not show any images or video footage on the copyrighted material is not a good faith report.
That's all well and good, but my point is that what consequences are there for filing a DMCA complaint in error? What is the legal "harm" and what are the claimant's liabilities? I can't see them being much, if anything.
At the very least there would need to be a full legal test of the merits of each disputed claim, which obviously isn't going to be cheap and not necessarily cut-and-dried in anyone's favor. I mean it could be a question as to whether the take-down was issued in the good-faith belief that it was infringing their IP, and even though it was subsequently found NOT to be the case, at the end of the day it was still just the IP holder asserting their moral and legal right to defending their property.
Point being I can't see it being at all easy to prove the issuer of the DMCA notice was acting in bad faith, even if they were in error. And as they weren't directly responsible for any damages incurred as result of the copyright strike, i.e. channel suspension, I don't see how they could be held culpable.
Basically you'd have to beat YouTube, to get at the alleged "gagging" party (Sony) in a case like this. That sounds kinda unwinnable to me.