[sliverstorm]

you think that any effort for the companies to pay you less than your imagined self-worth is illegal

Good lord, not any effort, just efforts that are, in fact, illegal. Your argument seems to be based on,

"Well these people already get paid a lot, so I don't really see why they should get paid more, even if their wages are being illegally depressed"

you still think they owe you more and need to be coerced to pay you more

The suit is not to "coerce" the companies to pay them more, it's seeking damages for the companies allegedly doing something illegal to pay them less.

[smsm42]

So basically you only argument why it is bad is "because it's illegal". There are lots of things that are or were illegal just because it serves some particular special interest or just because some lawmakers are doing really stupid things (I could spend half an hour here naming them but I'm sure a list not shorter than mine just popped into your head). So the most you can claim that special interest you're aligned with has upper hand in this particular case. Somehow, again, it doesn't add to my sympathy - there are already too many people that are extracting money primarily by lawmaking and lobbying, joining them is not exactly the best thing for the industry. So far no cogent argument of why these people need special protection of their interests has been presented, and the only argument presented - "we can win in court" - smells pretty bad in my opinion.

>>> it's seeking damages for the companies allegedly doing something illegal to pay them less.

Same thing. They couldn't extract money (in addition to huge money they did extract) by voluntary negotiation, so they extract it by coercion. When it is being done is a technical detail.