Meta’s recent $17 billion settlement with a coalition of states over alleged youth safety and consumer protection violations offers important lessons for consumer-facing businesses. While the size of the settlement drew headlines, a key development was the court’s use of an advisory jury. Although advisory jury findings are not binding and the judge retains final decision-making authority, they can provide valuable insight into how ordinary consumers view alleged deceptive business practices.
The case also highlights the implications of advisory juries for both plaintiffs and defendants. While such juries are relatively uncommon, courts have broad discretion to use them and may do so even over a party’s objection. For plaintiffs, advisory juries may offer a persuasive way to gauge community standards. For defendants, the case serves as a reminder that early decisions regarding jury demands can have lasting consequences, particularly in complex litigation involving related proceedings.
The case also highlights increasing scrutiny of the gap between a company’s internal knowledge and its public statements. Plaintiffs relied heavily on allegations that Meta’s internal research concerning user safety differed from its public representations. As regulators and plaintiffs continue to focus on internal studies, product testing, and user behavior data, companies should ensure that marketing materials, disclosures, and other public-facing communications align with what the organization knows internally.
In this article for Law360, Mark Morgan examines the judge’s use of an advisory jury in this case and what it could mean for the future of litigation against consumer-facing businesses.