I don't think so, since YouTube is operating their extrajudicial "go the extra mile for copyright holders" copyright claim system. It isn't required by law and this is what's being abused, not plain DMCA claims. For regular claimants, the regular (and free) DMCA system would still be in effect.

The bonus is that filing fraudulent DMCA claims has real legal repercussions under the law. I don't know if there's any real consequence for lying about copyright ownership to Google under their made-up claim system.

It isn't required by law, it's required by people who would sue the pants off it if it didn't kowtow to them.

Which is way scarier than something required by law. Law can be lobbied about and changed. Law has limits. Law can be ignored when you are rich and powerful.

Lawsuits from megacorps, on the other hand, cannot.

I smell IANAL

Nah, I'd expect under this model insurance would become readily available. Insurers live on the margins, so even though it would cost a lot of money if you crash that boring mid-range car into somebody's house, the insurer doesn't charge you a lot of money to insure you against that risk, they're betting that on average you're not going to do that. As a safeguard they probably don't insure kids who just got bought a Ferrari as their first car, or anybody who has just done time for crashing their car into a house on purpose, but mostly they're just playing the numbers.

Insurance would only work if the funds didn't have to be provided upfront, just in response to a failure.

That's already the status quo, random nobodies with their art ripped off by OpenAI or some content mill on YouTube don't have the benefit of hiring companies to perform takedowns.

Nah, you can subcontract a provider who bonds the 1M and puts their reputation on the line. If they deem your claim fit they can charge 500$ or 1k