I wish this victimized photographer well but frankly I don't think the model has an ice-cube's chance in hell in a US court as far as getting a monetary judgment against the photog.

Yes, you are right.  No rational judge would hold the photographer responsible in this case.  But the poor guy has to spend money hiring a lawyer and defending himself.  Very unfair. 

I am very happy I don't do glamour, and the couple times I found misuses a DMCA take down notice did the job. 

The danger is that instead of getting a judgement in court, which I agree will not likely go against the photographer, the parties agree to settle.  At that point anyone who ever posed for a picture will get the idea that they can sue the photographer and get a fat check in a settlement.  The flood gates open...

Usually a settlement comes with a non-disclosure agreement, which means nobody will know what the settlement amount is. It's also possible some of the parties may be dismissed from the lawsuit (hopefully). I think the trouble here is that the model expressed reservations before agreeing and the photographer reassured her, then her reservations turned out to be correct. That might be a sticking point. However, the real culprits here are the buyers, who (perhaps) broke SS's terms. The lawyers may negotiate and drop the photographer and SS from the suit because they acted in good faith.

But unfortunately, once you're sued you're forced to hire an attorney and respond, which sucks. I know...I was sued last year (it had nothing to do with micro stock). It took a year and thousands in legal fees before the suit was dismissed. Good times.