What Happens After the Verdict: How Meta, Google, and OpenAI Are Already Preparing for the Next Wave of Litigation

The jury rooms in Santa Fe and Los Angeles were small, fluorescent-lit spaces where Americans have made decisions on both minor and major issues for a century. They made a decision this past week that will plague Menlo Park and Mountain View’s boardrooms for years to come.

Additionally, the people who actually oversee legal strategy at Meta, Google, and increasingly OpenAI were not looking at the figures, even though the majority of the headlines focused on the monetary amounts—$375 million from one jury, $6 million from another. They were staring at the doors that those numbers had just opened.

Big Tech legal departments are currently experiencing a certain mood, and it’s not panic. It’s more akin to recalibration. Anyone who has worked for these firms will tell you that the attorneys have been preparing for this since about 2021, when Frances Haugen’s internal documents became public. The fact that twelve regular New Mexicans agreed with the accusation this week is what changed, not the accusation itself, which has been simmering for years. It turns out that Congress is more forgiving than juries.

The winning theory in Santa Fe is nearly elegant in its simplicity. State prosecutors disputed what Meta told users about safety rather than what users posted. Because it avoids the Section 230 shield that has protected platforms for almost thirty years, this reframing is extremely important. Investors appear to think this is a reasonable cost. The lawyers working on the upcoming wave of state-level lawsuits seem to think otherwise.

Meanwhile, over 2,400 bellwether cases against Meta, TikTok, Snap, and YouTube are piled high in a federal courthouse in Oakland. The Los Angeles ruling was intended to serve as a test, a warning sign for the thousands of claims that awaited it. The lawyers for the plaintiffs kept a close eye on things. Defense attorneys also did. Bellwethers are intended to calibrate settlements, not cap them, so it’s possible that the $6 million figure appears low, almost comforting. The math quickly becomes uncomfortable when you multiply that amount by even a small portion of the outstanding docket.

Due to its slight separation, OpenAI is an intriguing case to keep an eye on. Although the company hasn’t yet experienced a decision of this nature, its attorneys are not gullible. Teenagers who allegedly confided in ChatGPT before hurting themselves have already filed wrongful-death lawsuits against the company, and the logic of negligent-design claims easily transfers from social feeds to chatbots. It’s highly likely that emotionally responsive AI can be litigated if addictive design can. OpenAI’s legal team is closely examining the precedent that has been quietly established this spring.

What follows seems more like triage than a legal strategy. Be prepared for warning labels. Anticipate age-verification pilot programs, which Silicon Valley insisted were unfeasible for ten years. In cases that the companies would prefer not to be heard by another jury, expect quiet settlements. There’s a feeling that the industry is about to enter the same stage as tobacco and opioids, where the product doesn’t change nearly as quickly as the disclosures surrounding it.

It’s difficult to ignore how familiar the script is starting to feel as you watch this play out. Damages, disclosure, denial, and delay. The businesses will file an appeal, and when the Section 230 issue eventually makes it to a higher court—possibly the Supreme Court—someone in a black robe will determine how much of the previous internet deal is still valid. The verdicts remain on file until then. The figures are modest. It’s not the precedent.