CMR is the leading provider of funding and management support for small to medium-sized businesses and entrepreneurs 

Authored by Michael Wilkerson via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

Prices for retail diesel and gas have each risen by over a third ($1.30+ and $1.00 per gallon, respectively) since the launch of Epic Fury. Americans learned in the 1970s that Middle East conflict means energy pain, and that lesson has been reinforced through every subsequent Gulf crisis. This time, however, the more consequential threat to American household budgets is not the fuel pump. It is quietly moving through the global fertilizer supply chain, and it will impact hundreds of millions of Americans who depend on the food that comes out of the ground each fall.

The distinction between fuel and food inflation matters. America’s position in the natural gas market—specifically liquefied natural gas (LNG), the fuel at the center of this conflict—is stronger than it was even a few years ago. The United States is now the world’s largest LNG exporter. Our domestic production runs at over 109 billion cubic feet per day. Our export terminals are running near full capacity. As substantial portions of Qatar’s Ras Laffan complex have been taken offline and the Strait of Hormuz has been effectively closed to tanker traffic, European gas benchmarks have surged more than 60 percent and Asian spot prices have nearly doubled. The American benchmark, Henry Hub, has barely moved. The Energy Information Administration expects it to average around $3.80 per million BTU for 2026—roughly where it was before the war began. The paradox of being the world’s largest LNG producer is that we cannot easily move our gas to the global market when terminals are already at capacity, which means that global gas scarcity does not drain our domestic supply. On natural gas, the moat holds.

The story on fertilizer is different, and it deserves attention.

Fertilizer is the link between energy and food. Natural gas is not just a fuel; it is the primary feedstock for synthetic nitrogen fertilizers through a process developed over a century ago called the Haber–Bosch method. Natural gas goes in, ammonia comes out, ammonia becomes urea, urea gets spread on cornfields in Iowa and wheat fields in Kansas and rice paddies in Asia. About 80 percent of nitrogen fertilizer production costs are attributable to natural gas. When the Strait of Hormuz is practically shuttered, you do not just block oil tankers and LNG carriers. You block the ships carrying urea and ammonia that the world’s farmers were expecting to receive this spring.

The numbers are sobering. The Persian Gulf region accounts for roughly a third of globally traded urea exports and approximately 25 percent of ammonia trade. Qatar’s state fertilizer company—QAFCO, considered the world’s largest urea supplier—shut down its plant when gas was cut. Saudi Arabia and other Gulf producers have seen exports stall. China, the other major global fertilizer exporter, has restricted outbound shipments to protect its domestic supply. These two supply sources together represent a substantial share of the global market, and both are simultaneously constrained.

For American farmers, the timing is the cruelest part. Urea prices at the New Orleans import hub jumped more than 30 percent in the first week of the war, and by late March had risen roughly 77 percent from their December 2025 levels. Spring is the season when the largest volumes of fertilizer move into the country. Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins acknowledged that approximately 25 percent of American farmers had not yet purchased fertilizer for the planting season when the Strait closed. Those farmers are now facing input costs that look nothing like what they budgeted. The American Farm Bureau wrote to President Donald Trump calling for relief, and the image painted—a farmer who a few months ago could buy a ton of urea for the equivalent of 75 bushels of corn now needing 126 bushels for the same ton—captures the arithmetic of the squeeze.

That squeeze has limits that should be acknowledged. The majority of American farmers (an estimated 75 percent) did lock in their fertilizer before the outbreak of war. American agriculture is large, diversified, and resilient in ways that smaller or more import-dependent agricultural economies are not. The domestic natural gas that feeds American fertilizer producers is cheap by global standards, and domestic producers have a meaningful cost advantage over Gulf competitors at current prices. Buffer stocks exist. Markets will adjust. Other supplier nations will expand.

For American consumers, the impact will be real but delayed and partial. Commodity markets are already pricing in some reduction in crop yields globally. Global grain and oilseed production that depends on fertilizer applications made this spring will be affected by how long the disruption lasts. The food price consequences of a bad planting season arrive on grocery shelves six to twelve months later, not tomorrow. This is not a moment for panic. It is a moment for attention.

It is also an indictment of a supply chain that was allowed to grow dangerously concentrated in one of the world’s most volatile regions. The same mistake was made in Europe by dependency on Russian pipeline gas, and the European Union spent four years trying to unwind it. The dependence on Gulf fertilizers accumulated quietly over decades, driven by the same logic: the gas was cheap, the production was efficient, the ships kept running. The Strait of Hormuz is the chokepoint.

Food inflation will be visible later this year, although not nearly as severe in the United States as in the rest of the world. There is reason for optimism in the American position. We have the natural gas, the agricultural infrastructure, the fertilizer production capacity, and the market depth to weather this disruption better than almost any nation on earth. The war will end, the Strait will reopen. Crops will be planted. Some of the disruption will prove temporary. What should not be temporary is the lesson about dependence on a single chokepoint for one-third of a food input that has no short-term substitute. The Haber–Bosch process feeds 8 billion people. Allowing the ships that carry it to bottleneck through a strait only around two dozen miles wide in a war zone is a risk that was hiding in plain sight.

Views expressed in this article are opinions of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Epoch Times.

Authored by Celina via American Greatness,

Justice isn’t blind anymore: Multiculturalism has made impartial justice impossible

“Law grows with the growth, and strengthens with the strength of the people, and finally dies away as the nation loses its nationality.”
— Friedrich Carl von Savigny

On Tuesday, October 3, 1995, the verdict in the O. J. Simpson criminal trial was broadcast live across the globe, a truly defining moment of the late twentieth century. In the now-iconic split-screen imagery, as the words “not guilty” reverberated through the Los Angeles courtroom, black spectators erupted in celebration and applause, raising their fists in jubilation. Conversely, white spectators sat frozen in stunned, horrified silence, grappling with an incomprehensible subversion of the evidentiary record. The stunning juxtaposition of the visual perfectly captured the fracture of a society devoid of a shared moral consensus.

This was obviously not an exercise in blind justice; it was an exercise in racial grievance. Decades later, juror Carrie Bess admitted with chilling indifference in a 2016 documentary that 90 percent of the predominantly black jury knew Simpson was guilty, but voted to acquit him purely as “payback” for the Rodney King incident. When asked if she believed that decision was right, she merely shrugged.

This historic moment illuminates how, in multiracial societies, jury verdicts can trigger visibly racialized reactions rather than a shared acceptance of blind justice. When the fundamental demographic and cultural realities of a nation shift, the institutions built upon its original foundations buckle. This phenomenon is not isolated to the United States. Pivoting into the British context, the exact same dynamics now threaten the ancient English jury system, eroding the foundational pillars of common law.

This institutional decay must be understood as part of a broader civilizational shift away from participatory, community-rooted institutions toward centralized legal authority. Trial by jury, the sacred “little parliament” that Englishmen fought and died for since Magna Carta, is being dismantled because, in a multiracial society flooded by non-Western demographics, it no longer delivers blind justice. It delivers ethnic loyalty.

Nonwhite jurors display clear ethnocentric bias against white defendants and in favor of their own. The data is undeniable. The elites know it. That is why they are quietly abolishing peremptory challenges, gutting jury trials, and now planning to scrap them for almost everything except murder and rape. Demography is destiny, and if the English, Americans, or Australians become a minority in their own courtrooms, there will be no justice left.

The Jury as an “Ancient Right”

Originating from the legal codifications following Magna Carta in 1215, the English jury evolved from a body of local witnesses into an independent arbiter of fact, serving as the ultimate safeguard against the arbitrary power of the sovereign. By the twentieth century, the jury was entrenched in the Anglo-American legal consciousness as a deeply democratic institution that bound the citizenry to the state. In his seminal 1956 Hamlyn Lectures, Lord Devlin famously described the jury as the “little parliament,” noting that it was the “lamp that shows that freedom lives.”

The jury functioned as a localized check on state power, granting the common citizen the authority to temper the rigid application of the law with communal common sense. The historical power of jury nullification, whereby a jury refuses to convict a defendant despite overwhelming evidence of guilt, was historically celebrated as a triumph against state overreach. Cases such as the 1735 trial of John Peter Zenger, who was acquitted of seditious libel against the Royal Governor of New York, cemented the jury’s role as a bulwark of liberty. The jury possessed the ultimate veto, ensuring that the laws enacted by the sovereign could only be enforced if they aligned with the moral intuitions of the populace.

As detailed in the University College London (UCL) academic paper, “Decline of the ‘Little Parliament’: Juries and Jury Reform in England and Wales” by Sally Lloyd-Bostock and Cheryl Thomas, the jury was vigorously defended as an ancient right and a bastion of liberty, a mechanism whereby the ordinary person’s moral compass could inform legal decisions and contain the powers of government.

Yet the foundational prerequisite for this system, a homogeneous society bound by common ethical standards, trust, and a shared cultural inheritance, has been progressively dissolved. The concept of being tried by a jury of one’s “peers” historically implied a trial by individuals who shared the same linguistic, religious, ethnic, and moral baseline as the accused and the broader society.

When a society is fractured along ethnic and cultural lines, the jury ceases to be a microcosm of a unified nation. Instead, it becomes a contested battleground for competing tribal loyalties. Historical nullification, which used to be a noble tool against state tyranny, has mutated into ethnic nullification, where jurors refuse to convict members of their own in-group regardless of the evidence. This weaponization of an ancient right paralyzes the state’s ability to maintain basic order and shatters the epistemic foundation of the legal system.

The Modern Retreat from Jury Trials

Faced with the undeniable reality that juries in multiracial, fragmented societies cannot be trusted to deliver blind justice, the political and legal elites have chosen to quietly execute the institution rather than address the demographic root cause. This trajectory has culminated in contemporary U.K. reforms that represent a significant shift in the architecture of the legal system.

The latest breaking U.K. government news confirms this terminal retreat. In March 2026, Justice Secretary David Lammy formally announced the most significant contraction of the criminal justice system in 800 years. Under the newly outlined proposals, jury trials are about to be scrapped for almost everything. Only defendants accused of murder, rape, manslaughter, and a handful of select “public interest” cases will retain the right to be judged by their peers. The vast majority of criminal cases, offenses carrying a likely sentence of three years or less, which encompass grievous bodily harm, complex frauds, severe assaults, and robberies, will be diverted to a new tier of “swift courts.” In these newly established tribunals, a lone judge will act as both the arbiter of fact and the dispatcher of sentence, entirely bypassing the citizenry.

The government’s official justification for this draconian measure relies heavily on managerial rhetoric: reducing the record-breaking backlog of more than 78,000 Crown Court cases, cutting costs, and streamlining complexity. Drawing on the independent review of the criminal courts by Sir Brian Leveson, Lammy warned of a “court’s emergency” and asserted that eliminating the jury saves approximately 20 percent of a trial’s time, thereby ensuring greater efficiency and sparing victims the anguish of delay.

However, these technocratic excuses mask a more significant truth. The backlog is only a convenient pretext for a structural overhaul that the state has been maneuvering toward for decades. The abolition of the jury for the vast majority of crimes is the final admission that the multicultural jury experiment has failed catastrophically. The state can no longer rely on twelve randomly selected residents of modern London, Birmingham, or Manchester to share a common standard of truth, nor can it trust them not to fracture along ethnic lines. Consequently, the state is removing the public from the equation entirely. This represents a deep shift from participatory justice to managerial governance, wherein the state seeks to insulate its legal machinery from the volatile, tribal realities of the very society it has engineered.

The Problem of Impartiality in Mass Democracies

To understand why the state is terrified of its own citizens in the jury box, one must engage analytically with the overwhelming empirical evidence demonstrating the collapse of impartiality in diverse democracies. The tension between group identity and individual objectivity is mapped, quantified, and undeniable.

The baseline for this tribalism is clearly illustrated in the “How racial groups rate each other” chart from the 2021 American National Election Studies (ANES).

The data is visually structured as a four-panel grid, with each panel dedicated to the thermometer ratings provided by a specific respondent demographic: white, black, Hispanic, and Asian. While the chart clearly demonstrates universal in-group favoritism, a closer inspection reveals that the intensity and structure of this bias vary significantly across groups.

Black respondents, for instance, exhibit the most pronounced divergence, with their ratings of fellow blacks clustered at the extreme upper end of the scale, while their evaluations of whites, Hispanics, and Asians fall off sharply, producing the widest in-group/out-group gap in the dataset. By contrast, white respondents display a comparatively flattened distribution, with only a modest preference for their own group and relatively similar warmth ratings across all others. Hispanic and Asian respondents occupy an intermediate position, still favoring their own group but also revealing a discernible hierarchy in their evaluations of out-groups, suggesting that these preferences are not only binary but ordered along lines of perceived proximity or affinity. This pervasive, quantifiable tribalism forms the psychological substrate that jurors inevitably bring into the deliberation room.

When this baseline tribalism intersects with the criminal justice system, the results are catastrophic for the concept of blind justice. The Mitchell, Haw, Pfeifer, and Meissner (2005) meta-analytic table, titled “Moderator Analysis for Verdict Decisions” (Racial Bias in Sentencing Judgments), provides definitive proof.

The table tracks the effect size (d) of racial bias, where a positive number indicates a tendency to render harsher judgments against out-group defendants and more lenient judgments for in-group defendants. The data shows that black jurors exhibit a moderate, statistically significant in-group bias effect size of d = 0.428. In sharp contrast, white jurors demonstrate a negligible, statistically non-significant effect size of d = 0.028.

This immense disparity highlights that the ethnocentric bias is more than 15 times stronger for black jurors than for white jurors. This data shatters the prevailing media narrative that the legal system is plagued primarily by white racism. Instead, it proves that nonwhite jurors actively discriminate in favor of their own group, refusing to evaluate out-group defendants with the same leniency.

This dynamic is further corroborated by the U.S. pardoning-decisions bar chart titled “Black Americans and White Democrats Favor Black Criminals in Pardoning Decisions.”

The chart maps the average marginal effect on a 0-100 pardon support scale when the perpetrator is white versus black. The negative marginal effects vividly illustrate racial solidarity: white Democrats display a negative marginal effect of -7 to -8, indicating less support for pardoning white perpetrators compared to black ones. Black Democrats register a massive penalty of -12, and black Republicans also register at -12, indicating a severe, cross-partisan racial solidarity among black respondents in favor of black criminals. Meanwhile, white Republicans hover near zero (n.s.), showing no statistically significant racial preference.

The United Kingdom is not immune to these exact same forces. Research by Cheryl Thomas at UCL provides what can only be described as the smoking gun of ethnic jury nullification.

Displayed as a comparative bar chart titled “Juror Guilty Votes by Defendant and Juror Race (United Kingdom),” the graph contrasts the voting patterns of white jurors against black and minority ethnic (BME) jurors. White jurors voted to find white defendants guilty 39 percent of the time, and BME defendants guilty 32 percent of the time, demonstrating modest fairness and even a slight leniency toward minorities. However, the right side of the chart reveals a terrifying inversion: BME jurors voted to find white defendants guilty a staggering 73 percent of the time, but voted to convict BME defendants only 24 percent of the time.

This chart is the empirical death knell for the multicultural jury. It proves unequivocally that nonwhite jurors display overt levels of in-group bias and clear ethnocentric hostility toward white defendants. When jurors view the defendant box not as a space occupied by a tribal enemy or ally, the “little parliament” ceases to dispense justice. It dispenses ethnic warfare. The tension between group identity and individual impartiality cannot be resolved by mixed tribunals; it can only be suppressed by removing the public entirely and deferring to a judge-only system, which is precisely the trajectory the United Kingdom is now enforcing.

Yet, even removing the jury does not necessarily resolve the problem of impartiality. Judges, like all individuals, are not immune to social, cultural, or ideological influences. Many judges operate within broadly liberal legal frameworks, which can shape interpretive tendencies in ways that are not always neutral.

I explore this notion in greater detail in my article “They’re Not Left-Wing, They’re Anti-White,” where I examine the consequences of ideological bias.

The Decline of the “Common Culture”

The presumption that twelve randomly selected citizens can seamlessly converge upon a shared understanding of truth, duty, and justice is a uniquely Western inheritance. It presupposed a shared language, parallel moral intuitions, and a transcendent identity. The critical civilizational question now facing the United Kingdom, America, and the rest of the Western world is whether institutions built on the bedrock of cultural cohesion can survive once that cohesion has been deliberately dissolved.

The answer was forcefully articulated decades ago by Lee Kuan Yew, the founding father of Singapore. Trained as a lawyer at Cambridge, Lee initially absorbed the Anglo-American legal traditions. However, his firsthand experiences in the rapidly diversifying, post-colonial landscape of Singapore shattered any illusions about the universality of the jury system. The catalyst was the 1950 Maria Hertogh riots. The case involved a custody dispute over a Dutch-Eurasian girl, Maria, who was raised by a Malay Muslim foster mother, Che Aminah, during World War II. When a British colonial court in Singapore ordered the girl returned to her biological Dutch Catholic parents, the verdict was perceived as a tribal insult to Islam. The ensuing riots left 18 people dead and 173 injured, exposing the lethal volatility of imposing Western legal paradigms on a multireligious, multiracial populace.

Lee Kuan Yew learned from this bloodshed. As a young advocate, he later defended four Muslim men accused of murdering a British Royal Air Force officer, his wife, and his child during the riots. By his own admission in a 1977 BBC interview, Lee ruthlessly exploited the ethnic and religious allegiances of the jury, playing on their reluctance to convict their co-religionists of killing a white colonial officer in cold blood.i He secured an acquittal that left the judge disgusted and Lee himself feeling “quite sick.”ii He realized that justice was impossible when tribalism overrode the facts. Consequently, in 1969, Lee’s government completely abolished the jury system in Singapore.

His full verdict on multiracial jury trials remains a significant, black-and-white image of unvarnished truth: “In a multiracial society, trial by jury can result in communal prejudices influencing verdicts. . . . You cannot assume that each juror will set aside his race, language, and religion.” Expanding on this in his memoirs From Third World to First and in his BBC interview reflections, Lee positioned himself as the wise Asian statesman who saw clearly what Britain’s elites stubbornly refuse to admit: the Anglo-Saxon tradition of trial by jury only works for Anglo-Saxons or those thoroughly assimilated into their cultural inheritance. It fundamentally fails in a fragmented, non-Western demographic landscape because communal allegiances inevitably corrupt the scales of justice. A shared identity is the invisible scaffolding of the courtroom; without it, the edifice collapses.

Case Studies

For centuries, the defense held the right to dismiss potential jurors without cause, an essential tool for ensuring a fair trial. However, as the United Kingdom’s demographics began to shift in the twentieth century, ethnic-minority defense lawyers began weaponizing peremptory challenges to purge white jurors and architect racially stacked juries sympathetic to nonwhite defendants. The UCL paper by Lloyd-Bostock and Thomas maps this systemic erosion: the number of peremptory challenges was reduced to 12 in 1925, restricted to seven in 1949, slashed to three in 1977, and suffered total abolition by the Criminal Justice Act of 1988.

The tipping point was a notorious 1977 case in Thornton Heath, where a group of black youths was acquitted of serious charges after the defense cynically stacked the jury to ensure a sympathetic, ethnic-minority composition. As the UCL paper shows, the defense “privately agreed to exercise their peremptory challenges to ensure” a specific demographic makeup, resulting in acquittals that fueled the campaign for total abolition. The elites recognized that ethnic-minority lawyers were exploiting the rules to engineer acquittals, and rather than admit that diversity had compromised the system, they quietly revoked an ancient legal right from all citizens.

In the United States, ethnic jury nullification has repeatedly paralyzed the justice system. The Ethan Liming slaying in Akron, Ohio (2022) serves as a grim case study of this phenomenon. Liming, a 17-year-old white youth, was brutally beaten to death outside a school by three black males (including Deshawn and Tyler Stafford) following a minor altercation involving a water pellet gun. Despite the overwhelming brutality of the crime, a diverse jury acquitted the primary assailants of involuntary manslaughter, resulting in a hung jury and a mistrial on the most serious charges, allowing the perpetrators to escape with minor assault convictions. The Liming family was bewildered by grief, and their statement that they could simply not understand “why somebody who gets brutally beat by three individuals walks out with minor felonies” echoed the sentiments of a public witnessing the normalization of ethnic protectionism by coethnics in the jury box.

Similar subversions of justice occur relentlessly. In San Bernardino, California, Ari Young, a black man captured on cell phone video violently beating Deputy Megan McCarthy, stealing her service weapon, and firing it at her, was acquitted by a jury of assault with a firearm.

In Delaware, Calvin Ushery, a repeat offender caught on clear surveillance video brutally pistol-whipping and attacking 68-year-old Asian jewelry store owner Chang Suh with a hammer, was initially granted a mistrial after a jury deadlocked following two days of deliberation.

This was an overt display of black holdouts refusing to condemn a coethnic despite unimpeachable video evidence. Anecdotal accounts from jurors and prosecutors increasingly point to this reality: tribal loyalties frequently override objective evidence.

Conversely, the trial of Derek Chauvin for the death of George Floyd showcased the inverse dynamic. Juries heavily influenced by Black Lives Matter activism, operating in a heavily racialized atmosphere under the implicit threat of civil unrest, delivered swift, maximalist convictions. In these instances, the jury acts as an instrument of out-group targeting and political pacification.

In the U.K., this tribal protectionism operates in real time. Consider the recent trial of Labour Party councilor Ricky Jones at Snaresbrook Crown Court. Jones was filmed at an “anti-racist” rally explicitly calling for the throats of “disgusting Nazi fascists” to be slit, while mimicking the action across his own neck with his finger to a cheering crowd of thousands. The evidence was public and undisputed. Yet a jury swiftly returned a unanimous verdict of not guilty for the charge of encouraging violent disorder.

To understand the verdict, you must simply look at the Snaresbrook map and demographic statistics. The trial was held in a judicial district that is now less than half white British. The area is heavily populated by the very demographics sympathetic to Jones’s political and ethnic alignment. This is what “demography is destiny” looks like in real time, a jury that looked like “modern London” voted to protect one of their own, bypassing the objective law to deliver an ethnically and politically motivated acquittal. The evidence was simply ignored by a jury exercising its demographic prerogative.

Conclusion

The erosion of trial by jury is the death rattle of an ancient civilizational inheritance. The “little parliament” was forged in a society of high trust, shared heritage, and common moral purpose. It was designed to ensure that the law reflected the conscience of a unified community. But a nation cannot have a community conscience if it is no longer a cohesive community.

The empirical data referred to above is irrefutable. The evidence confirms what Lee Kuan Yew observed over half a century ago. Juries in multiracial societies deliver communal victories and tribal revenge. The elites, fully aware of this terminal decay, have chosen to dismantle the institution rather than abandon the demographic project that destroyed it.

By eliminating peremptory challenges and now rapidly moving to scrap the jury for all but the rarest of crimes under the guise of “swift courts,” the state is insulating itself from the chaotic realities of the society it has engineered. Demography is destiny. When the foundational culture is reduced to a minority in its own courtrooms, the civic institutions built by that culture perish. The lamp that shows that freedom lives is being extinguished, replaced by the cold, technocratic glare of the managerial state, ensuring that in the blind pursuit of multiculturalism, there will be no true justice left.

“A great civilisation is not conquered from without until it has destroyed itself from within.”
— Will Durant

Authored by Jacob Burg via The Epoch Times,

Two major court verdicts last week finding social media giants Meta and YouTube liable for harm to users could send shock waves through the tech industry.

In a first-of-its-kind lawsuit, a jury in Los Angeles on March 25 found both companies liable for making their platforms addictive and deleterious to the mental health of young users.

The 20-year-old plaintiff, referred to as “Kaley G.M.” or only her initials K.G.M. during trial, testified that she had become addicted to social media at a young age and that it negatively affected her mental health.

Jurors ultimately decided that Meta was more liable for harming K.G.M., giving the tech giant 70 percent of the responsibility, or $2.1 million of the total $3 million in punitive damages, while YouTube shouldered 30 percent, or $900,000.

An additional $3 million in compensatory damages were recommended by jurors to be paid by Meta and YouTube—the only remaining defendants in the case after TikTok and Snap settled with K.G.M. before trial—after deciding they acted with malice, oppression, or fraud in harming children with their platforms.

In a separate case, jurors in New Mexico determined on March 24 that Meta had violated state law by failing to properly disclose risks to and protect children on its social media platforms. The case, brought by New Mexico Attorney General Raúl Torrez, resulted in a $375 million fine.

Prosecutor Linda Singer, who previously served as attorney general of the District of Columbia but now works in private litigation, had asked the jury to fine Meta $2 billion.

Former federal prosecutor Neama Rahmani called them “bellwether” cases.

“Obviously, these cases will absolutely go up on appeal,” he told The Epoch Times.

“I think they will likely end up before the Supreme Court, and how they view this issue will make or break Big Tech, because I think we’re going to see lots of copycat lawsuits, and the judgments and fines are going to rack up into the billions and billions of dollars.”

A person holds a sign referencing the 20-year-old plaintiff, identified in court as “Kaley G.M.” or by her initials K.G.M., as people wait for a verdict in the social media trial in Los Angeles on March 20, 2026. On March 25, a jury found both companies liable for making their platforms addictive and deleterious to the mental health of young users and ordered the companies to pay $3 million in damages. Patrick T. Fallon/AFP via Getty Images

While the cases reflect two different sets of accusations—addictive design on the one hand and failure to protect children on the other—both will likely invite a torrent of claims, said John Shu, a constitutional law expert who served in both Bush administrations.

“I think this will definitely open the litigation floodgates in California, and not just for individual lawsuits,” Shu told The Epoch Times. “It also opens the floodgates to class action lawsuits; that’s where the big money is.”

Addictive Design Versus Child Safety Issues

In the Los Angeles trial, jurors heard testimony from a range of witnesses, including therapists, adolescent addiction experts, executives, engineers, and whistleblowers.

The case highlighted the platforms’ design and operation, such as their “infinite scroll” features, beauty filters, and the companies’ proprietary algorithms that determine the type of content served to users.

Plaintiff attorney Mark Lanier did not target third-party content found on the platforms, which enjoys broad protection from the First Amendment and Section 230 of the 1996 Communications Decency Act.

Instead, he argued that the tech giants preyed on their vulnerable teen users in pursuit of money and power, comparing them to lions stalking wounded gazelles on the Serengeti.

Plaintiffs’ attorney Mark Lanier (C) speaks to reporters outside the Los Angeles Superior Court in Los Angeles on March 25, 2026. Frederic J. Brown/AFP via Getty Images

In the New Mexico case, Torrez argued that Meta violated the state’s Unfair Practices Act by knowing about the potential danger its platforms presented to children and hiding it from the public.

His office had its investigators set up accounts on Meta’s platforms posing as minors, after which they began to receive sexually explicit images and messages from adult users.

Jurors ultimately found 37,500 violations under one subsection of New Mexico’s Unfair Practices Act and the same number under another. Since fines were limited to a maximum of $5,000 per violation, Meta was fined $375 million.

“It was pretty remarkable, because the jury came back quickly. And the conventional wisdom in these civil cases is that a quick verdict is usually a defense verdict,” Rahmani said, referring to a verdict that is given in favor of a defendant, often when the plaintiff or prosecutors are unable to prove their case.

Instead, jurors returned an “overwhelmingly plaintiff’s verdict in less than a day,” Rahmani said.

But Meta may be forced to do more after it defends itself during the follow-up hearing in May, which will determine whether the tech giant’s platforms created a public nuisance and whether it should be required to pay for public programs to address harms to users.

Accusing Meta of creating a public nuisance with its digital social media platforms is a novel use of the law, Shu said.

“The historical tradition of public nuisance is tied to land or real estate,” he said, using the example of a landowner being required to remove a fallen tree blocking a public road at the threat of fines from a state or municipal government.

Lawyer Matthew Bergman of the Social Media Victims Law Center speaks to the press as survivor parents Amy Neville, Julianna Arnold, Deb Schmill, Judy Rogg, Toney Roberts, and Brandy Roberts stand outside the Los Angeles Superior Court in Los Angeles on Feb. 18, 2026. Jill Connelly/Getty Images

“This is a novel use of public nuisance. But if they convince a judge to do it, that’s going to open the door to massive payouts, not in actual damages, but in so-called ‘abatement costs,’” Shu said. “Because the state attorney general represents all of New Mexico’s 2.1 million citizens, they and their private sector mass-tort plaintiffs lawyers can ask for billions of dollars.”

That’s because in a public nuisance hearing, the awarded damages would not be based on individual violations of the law, but instead applied to the number of citizens in the state.

Critically, both verdicts only require the companies to pay out monetary damages—neither requires either company to change or alter the design or operations of their platforms. That may change for Meta after its May hearing in the New Mexico case.

Meta, Google Deny Allegations

Both Meta and Google, which owns YouTube, have denied that their platforms are designed to be addictive.

“We disagree with the verdict and plan to appeal,” Jose Castañeda, a Google spokesperson, said in a statement to The Epoch Times. “This case misunderstands YouTube, which is a responsibly built streaming platform, not a social media site.”

Meta said it respectfully disagrees with the two verdicts and plans to appeal.

“Reducing something as complex as teen mental health to a single cause risks leaving the many, broader issues teens face today unaddressed and overlooks the fact that many teens rely on digital communities to connect and find belonging,” a company spokesperson said in a statement to The Epoch Times.

“We remain committed to building safe, supportive environments for young people and will defend our record vigorously.”

Meta also highlighted the fact that the jury in the California case awarded $3 million in punitive damages after the plaintiff’s counsel had sought more than a billion.

Attorney Luis Li, representing YouTube and Google, arrives at Los Angeles Superior Court during the social media trial in Los Angeles on March 25, 2026. Both Meta and Google, which owns YouTube, have denied that their platforms are designed to be addictive and plan to appeal. Frederic J. Brown/AFP via Getty Images

Future Litigation Potential

Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) said he noticed similarities between the two social media cases and those he’d previously litigated against the tobacco industry.

“Both [Big Tobacco and Big Tech] have made products with lethal design defects—leading to destructive addiction. Tobacco exploited nicotine’s grip, Big Tech used infinite scrolling, & a myriad of other devices,” he wrote on social media.

“Both have targeted children—relentlessly & reprehensibly—putting profits over public health, promoting generational addiction & harm.”

Shu said social media litigators may follow a similar playbook used against Big Tobacco by first suing based on alleged harms to children before widening the scope to all users of the companies’ products.

“Once they’ve established liability for kids, instead of saying, ‘Well, adults use cigarettes too,‘ now they’re going to say, ’Well, adults use Instagram and Snapchat too,’” he said. “So that’s where all this is headed next.”

Google is particularly vulnerable, Shu said, because it is responsible not only for YouTube, but also for Android, Gemini, and DeepMind, and it is the dominant search engine.

Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) participates in a forum at the U.S. Capitol on March 17, 2026. Blumenthal said he noticed similarities between the two social media cases and those he’d previously litigated against the tobacco industry. Kevin Dietsch/Getty Images

Braden Perry, a government investigations and corporate litigation attorney, said the verdicts provide regulatory agencies with a road map for pursuing future cases without requiring new legislation.

State attorneys general can also pursue consumer protection actions against tech companies, Perry told The Epoch Times.

Long-Term Impacts on Tech Industry

“If engagement-maximization features become liability risks, platforms will face pressure to redo their algorithms and interfaces to prioritize welfare over engagement metrics,” Perry said, adding that “good actors” in the industry may face more disadvantages than companies “who skirt or ignore the risks” or that are more “aggressive than others.”

He said the verdicts not only threaten Meta and Google, but also the “foundational assumption that technology companies bear no responsibility for their design choices.”

These are not the only ramifications for the tech industry.

The New Mexico case specifically goes “beyond addiction alone and raises broader questions about whether these platforms are reasonably safe for children and adolescents,” attorney Michael Ponce told The Epoch Times.

He said the growing body of scientific research describing how prolonged social media use may negatively impact mental health was critical in both cases.

Images of deceased children are displayed at the “Lost Screen Memorial,” an art installation of large-scale smartphones featuring 50 children who lost their lives due to social media harm online, in Los Angeles on Feb. 13, 2026. Frederic J. Brown/AFP via Getty Images

Additionally, the central allegation in the California case and many related lawsuits is that companies were aware of the risks but “nevertheless continued to design their platforms in a manner that prioritized user engagement,” Ponce said.

The two verdicts, and any future cases that draw inspiration from them, could “cripple” the tech industry and send a “warning” to social media companies, Shu said.

He said if prosecutors in other states—particularly one with a large population like California’s—decide to follow the same path as New Mexico, the abatement costs for the citizenry if a public nuisance ruling is granted are likely to be massive.

“This is one heck of a warning, it’s kind of like somebody opening up a fire hose on you to wake you up in the morning,” Shu said.