Forget Temu’s “Bugatti” Knockoff. Texas Man 3D-Printed A Lamborghini Aventador Body
Forget ordering a $30,000 “Bugatti” knockoff from Chinese e-commerce websites like Temu.
A private seller in Texas is now offering what appears to be a fully 3D-printed Lamborghini Aventador body on Facebook Marketplace, highlighting how 3D printing is revolutionizing custom vehicle manufacturing.
“This is a fully 3D-printed Lamborghini Aventador project that gives you a huge head start. It includes the complete body, front frame, rear frame, and monocoque already printed and sized to Aventador dimensions,” the listing stated.
The 3D-printed Aventador body is listed for $5,000. But the price jumps to $7,500 if buyers want the exterior and interior all glued together, or $8,500 if they want the frame pieces included in the gluing.
To complete the build, the seller says the body will still need to be reinforced with fiberglass, mounted to a steel frame, and fitted with a drivetrain, suspension, and interior (view listing here).
Automotive website Jalopnik was the first to report the listing, offering its take:
I may have some ideas about 3D print strength that friends of mine call “overly conservative” or “downright anxious,” but I still don’t think I’d trust a car with a tub that’s been glued together out of various 3D prints. The seller doesn’t even specify what kind of plastic they’re using. ABS is an option, but ever-popular PLA filament will degrade under the kind of constant UV exposure that a car sees.
While censorship is often the main focus of discussions about free speech, there’s a related phenomenon that can do just as much damage to a free society. Not by preventing people from saying things they believe in, but by forcing them to say things they do not.
Compelled speech requires people to use certain words or phrases, or to partake in upholding certain ideological beliefs. It is just as dangerous to free expression as overt censorship.
The constant recitation of indigenous “land acknowledgements” illustrates Canada’s shift towards enforced mass-compliance on complicated social issues. These statements have become ubiquitous in Canadian public life: at schools, workplaces, government functions, ceremonies, and sporting events. Institutions display them on websites, documents, email signatures, and social media. A busy person in Canada may come across dozens of land acknowledgements per day in various contexts.
Although framed as optional gestures of respect, many organizations now have policies mandating land acknowledgements; in other circumstances, social pressure can make them seem obligatory even if they’re not.
Land acknowledgements have morphed well beyond a simple sharing of history into something much more problematic: they have become a sort of sacred ritual with near-spiritual implications, tying certain ethnic groups to ownership over nature itself. When unpacked, there is a lot being said between the lines.
Stepping out of line on land acknowledgements can set off a variety of hostile reactions, ranging from social condemnation to significant legal consequences. Geoffrey Horsman is a biochemistry professor at Wilfrid Laurier University in Waterloo, Ont. As a parent of three children in the local school system and a member of his local school’s parent council, he noted the growing politicization of the regional school system. Of particular concern was the practice of opening every meeting with a land acknowledgement, which took up valuable time and reinforced what he considers a divisive premise.
“I don’t think there is anything good that can come out of the idea that a certain ethnic group are the true inheritors of this land,” Horsman said in an interview. But when he raised his objections about the practice, he encountered immediate resistance. In a series of meetings with Waterloo Region District School Board staff, he was told that even discussing the issue was off the table. He has since brought a legal case against the board.
Catherine Kronas, the mother of a student attending Ancaster High Secondary School in Hamilton, Ont., actually lost her position as an elected member of her school council last year after she politely disagreed with land statements being read out loud before meetings. “School councils should decide what gets said in their meetings, and we shouldn’t have to recite something mandated by the government,” she told me. Kronas was reinstated only after threatening legal action.
Horsman’s and Kronas’s cases are both about indigenous land acknowledgements, but the issues they raise run deeper. They could have been challenging any form of imposed ideological speech. In fact, many Canadian governments and institutions are developing a worrying track record of legally enforcing ideological language on a number of topics.
The B.C. Human Rights Tribunal, for example, recently levied an astonishing $750,000 fine against Barry Neufeld, a former school board trustee, after he was critical of the integration and facilitation of transgenderism within public education. Neufeld says he will appeal the fine, which clearly aims to punish him financially for expressing his lack of belief in what the tribunal seems to think is an unquestionable truth.
Compelled speech, or compelled support for any position, quells discourse and creates a type of moral injury. Whether you support the notion of land acknowledgements or not, there is a contradiction at the core of the concept: how can words be respectful if they are coerced?
Most Canadians consider themselves polite, kind, and caring, a usually laudable set of characteristics that has lately been weaponized. How might we begin to move on from the current cultural climate of tension and towards a freer and more relaxed Canada?
Retired Manitoba judge Brian Giesbrecht has some suggestions. In an interview, Giesbrecht agrees that today’s land acknowledgements “create a divisive form of belief in which some people only have rights as ‘settlers.’” To shift this situation, he offers a list of possible ways Canadians can object to compelled speech. His list includes making a written complaint, standing up and objecting in public, walking out of a meeting, and using legal channels to challenge attempted ideological coercion.
The future of a prosperous, functional, united Canada depends on being able to say what you believe and having the freedom to remain silent when you do not. This Canada can and must be restored. Next time you encounter a belief you do not feel eager to participate in, consider abstaining or politely pushing back. If we all resist these pressures, it will no longer be an act of bravery to conduct oneself genuinely and truthfully.
George Ramsay is a recent kinesiology graduate from Victoria, British Columbia. This is an edited version of his grand-prize-winning entry in the 3rd Annual Patricia Trottier and Gwyn Morgan Student Essay Contest first published by C2C Journal.
Views expressed in this article are opinions of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Epoch Times or ZeroHedge.
GOP Senator Opposes More Than 60 Days Of War On Iran Without War Declaration
In what could become a key milestone in an unpopular US-Israeli war on Iran that has the world on the edge of economic catastrophe, a Republican senator from one America’s reddest states has announced his opposition to continued action against Iran beyond 60 days from the Feb 28 commencement of hostilities — unless Congress approves it.
“I support the president’s actions taken in defense of American lives and interests,” wrote first-term Sen. John Curtis in an opinion piece published by the Desert News. “However, I will not support ongoing military action beyond a 60-day window without congressional approval.”
I stand by the President’s actions taken in defense of our national security interests in the Middle East. But we must be clear-eyed about history and the Constitution. While I support maintaining our readiness and replenishing stockpiles, I cannot support funding for further…
— Senator John Curtis (@SenJohnCurtis) April 3, 2026
Walking a careful and arguably untenable line as he represents a reliably red state that Trump won by 22 points in 2024, Curtis gave full backing to Trump’s unilateral commitment of US forces to war in concert with the State of Israel. Curtis goes so far as to declare that “Iran’s consistent and increasingly disruptive behavior presents exactly the kind of threat the War Powers Resolution envisions.”
Note, he didn’t refer — as some others have — to an impending retaliation against US forces in the region if Israel had acted alone (an argument that itself ignores America’s theoretical power to order Israel to stand down). Instead, Curtis argued that Iran’s decades of actions in the region somehow cleared the War Powers Resolution’s hurdle of “a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces.”
A Reuters/Ipsos poll found that about two-thirds of Americans want the U.S. to end its involvement in the Iran War quickly, even if it means not achieving its goals.
Curtis argues, however, that the Constitution clearly assigns responsibility for authorizing sustained war to the Congress:
“The Constitution assigns Congress the responsibility to “provide for the common defense,” and in that context, it gives Congress the corresponding power to declare war. It would be an act of disrespect to our Constitution if we were to accord the president the right to make war without any declaration of war; the Framers deliberately described a substantive power to declare war and assigned that power to Congress.”
In addition to justifying his position the need for post-60-days congressional approval on constitutional grounds, Curtis also pointed to the grim history of the US war in Vietnam, emphasizing that what began in 1950 with the dispatching of just “thirty-five men” to assist the French in training Vietnamese troops would evolve into a peak of more than a half-million American soldiers in the country, with nearly 60,000 dying in an undeclared war.
The Iran War Powers Resolution narrowly failed, but we put everyone on record.
We’re being told this military action could last months. That’s the exact circumstance in which the Founders intended for Congress to authorize war, but sadly we’ve now abdicated that responsibility. pic.twitter.com/lE8HOLXUpc
Curtis didn’t say whether he would vote to declare war on Iran, focusing instead on his opposition to “funding for continued military operations without Congress having the opportunity to weigh in.” There have already been several attempts to block further military action without congressional approval — all of them have been thwarted. To this point, only a few Republicans have backed these war-power resolutions: Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul joined Democrats in supporting a Senate measure, while Kentucky Rep Thomas Massie introduced one in the House, and was joined by Ohio Rep. Warren Davidson, who is a former Army Ranger.
Way back on March 5, House Speaker Mike Johnson said such resolutions “play right into the hands of the enemy.” He also claimed “we are not at war. We have no intention of being at war. This is a limited operation.” That “not a war” argument is belied not only by a common-sense assessment of whether a massive bombing campaign on a foreign state constitutes “war,” but also by repeated characterizations of the United States being in a state of war by President Trump, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth and others in the administration.
NOW – Trump on Iran War: “It’s for legal reasons I say military op, because as a military operation I don’t need any approvals. As a war you’re supposed to get approval from Congress, something like that. So I call it a military operation.” pic.twitter.com/gk0MEt0YOI
There are other cracks in the GOP’s support for the war. On March 19, Colorado Rep. Lauren Boebert recoiled at the Pentagon’s wish for a $200 billion supplemental funding to pay for the war on Iran.
“I’ve already told leadership, ‘I am a no on any war supplementals. I am so tired of spending money elsewhere. I am tired of the industrial war complex getting all of our hard-earned tax dollars. I have folks in Colorado who can’t afford to live…We need America First policies now, and that –– I’m not doing that.”
At the time, Boebert said it was “up to the president” whether the war with Iran should stop. Increasingly, it looks like it’s up to Ayatollah Khamenei.
Iran Allows Iraqi Ships To Use Strait Of Hormuz As Total Weekly Transits Reach Highest Since War Began
Over the past two weeks we have been chronicling the increased rate of crossing across the “blockaded” strait of Hormuz as a growing number of ships from friendly nations – whether untolled Chinese tankers or toll-paying Indian, Japanese and Korean vessels – have been making the passage. And as traffic through the Hormuz strait has been picking up in the past week, the seven-day rolling average for transits on Friday reached the highest since the war started, according to Bloomberg.
More vessels are crossing, including those with no clear links to Iran or China, as nations negotiate with Tehran to get their ships through. Transits over the past day were led by liquefied petroleum gas carriers, including one headed to India and others with Iranian affiliations.
Per Bloomberg calculations, a total of 13 ships have crossed since Friday morning, with 10 exiting the Persian Gulf and three entering from the open seas, according to vessel-tracking data compiled by Bloomberg. To be sure, that’s still a trickle compared with the numbers before the war began on Feb. 28: in normal times, about a fifth of the world’s oil and liquefied natural gas passes through the strait every day.
Recent crossings included a French container ship and a Japanese-owned LNG tanker, seemingly the first such transits since the war began. It’s not clear whether those journeys were a result of diplomatic outreach or negotiations by shipping companies and their intermediaries.
Outbound traffic included five bulk carriers and one oil-product tanker joined the four LPG tankers in exiting the Persian Gulf since Friday morning. Three of the bulkers and the fuel tanker sailed on Saturday morning. Apart from the Indian LPG vessel, the others are linked to Chinese or Iranian interests.
On the inbound side, two LPG carriers and one fuel tanker with Iranian affiliations were among the inbound transits recorded since Friday morning.
But while traffic is slowly but surely rising, a potential gamechanger for energy flows and oli supplies through Hormuz was unveiled today when the Iranian military said major oil producer Iraq is exempt from shipping restrictions in the Strait of Hormuz.
“Brotherly Iraq is exempt from any restrictions we have imposed on the Strait of Hormuz,” Iran’s military spokesman said in an Arabic-language video statement published by state-run Islamic Republic News Agency.
The restrictions are imposed only on “enemy countries,” said Ebrahim Zolfaghari, a spokesman for Iran’s Khatam al-Anbiya Central Headquarters. Iran’s control of the strait has become its biggest leverage in the conflict.
The declaration has the potential to unleash as much as 3 million barrels a day of Iraqi oil cargoes. An Iraqi official, however, cautioned that the usefulness of the exemption will depend on whether shipping companies are willing to risk entering the strait to collect cargoes.
It’s not immediately clear if the exemption will apply to all Iraqi oil or just the nation’s tankers, or indeed how it will be enforced.
Separately, officials in Iran’s Khuzestan province said the Shalamcheh international border crossing with Iraq has reopened after a brief closure. Lofteh Derokvandi, deputy governor of Khuzestan and special governor of Khorramshahr, told Iran’s state news agency IRNA that crossings had resumed for pilgrims and traders, with commercial activity continuing without disruption.
The Strait of Hormuz has been called the jugular vein of the world’s oil supply, and as Operation Epic Fury continues, Iran continues to have a chokehold on the critical supply route.
About one-fifth of the world’s oil and gas is typically shipped through the narrow waterway connecting the Persian Gulf to the Arabian Sea.
But Iran’s attacks on commercial vessels have brought traffic through the strait to a virtual standstill since the start of the conflict on Feb. 28.
In March, just 220 vessels transited the strait, according to data from maritime analytics platform Marine Traffic. Prior to the war, thousands of ships traversed the waterway each month.
These actions have caused oil and gas prices to surge. Brent, a global benchmark for oil prices, has risen firmly above $100 a barrel overseas. The average gas price in the United States has surged past $4 per gallon.
President Donald Trump has threatened to launch strikes on Iran’s oil wells, power plants, and critical oil infrastructure on Kharg Island unless the strait is reopened. He delayed the strikes on Iranian energy infrastructure until April 6, pending talks with the regime.
Here’s a look at how much oil travels through the Strait of Hormuz and where it goes.
An average of 20 million barrels of oil and refined products flowed through the narrow gateway between the Arabian Peninsula and Iran each day in 2025. That’s roughly 25 percent of the world’s sea-borne oil trade, according to a February analysis from the International Energy Agency.
The strait is only 21 miles wide at its narrowest point, with shipping lanes just two miles wide in each direction.
The vast majority of crude oil and condensate—a natural gas byproduct—went to Asia (91 percent), according to a U.S. Energy Information Administration analysis based on Vortexa tanker-tracking data from the first half of 2025.
Of those Asian nations, China and India absorbed about half of the crude moving through the strait—37 percent and 14 percent, respectively—followed by Japan and South Korea at 12 percent each. Sixteen percent went to other countries in Asia and Oceania.
The United States and Europe remained marginal buyers, receiving just 3 percent and 4 percent, respectively.
Roughly three-quarters of crude oil travel by tanker ship through the strait came from Saudi Arabia (38 percent), Iraq (22 percent), and the United Arab Emirates (14 percent). Iran shipped just 11 percent.
Crude Oil Exports Transiting the Strait of Hormuz, 2025
Additionally, the strait accounts for nearly 20 percent of the global liquefied natural gas trade. Qatar, the world’s largest gas exporter after the United States, represents 93 percent of that volume.
In 2025, Asia received almost 90 percent of the liquefied natural gas flowing through the strait. Europe received just over 10 percent.
Of Asian countries, Bangladesh, India, and Pakistan sourced almost two-thirds of their total liquefied natural gas supplies via the Strait of Hormuz last year.
Japan (57 percent), South Korea (55 percent), and India (50 percent) relied on the Gulf nations for at least half of their oil and gas imports in 2024. China sourced roughly 35 percent of its supplies from the region.
Additionally, Taiwan imported 40 percent of its oil and gas from the region in 2024, while Pakistan sourced more than 81 percent of its oil and gas imports from the Gulf area.
Some African countries, such as Mauritania (76 percent), Uganda (61 percent), and Kenya (55 percent), relied on the Gulf for more than half of their fuel.
Meanwhile, nearly 96 percent of Iranian oil and gas exports through the route in 2024 were designated for one destination: Pakistan.
In Europe, roughly one-third of the energy imports for Greece (35 percent), Lithuania (32 percent), and Poland (30 percent) originated from Gulf countries.
North American reliance on Gulf energy remains minimal, however. The United States received 10 percent of its imports from Gulf nations, and Canada received 5 percent.
While regional producers have sought alternatives to the Strait of Hormuz, these options have struggled to serve as adequate replacements.
Saudi Arabia, for example, maintains an east-west pipeline that can move approximately 5 million barrels of oil a day to the Red Sea. However, the Abqaiq–Yanbu pipeline system has a maximum capacity of 7 million barrels. This terminal is already heavily used and cannot replace the strait.
The United Arab Emirates has an oil pipeline that bypasses the strait—the Abu Dhabi Crude Oil Pipeline—but it has a capacity of only 1.5 million barrels per day.
As for Qatar’s liquefied natural gas, there is no alternative route.
The strait is effectively a single point of failure for Gulf exporters, as no alternative pipeline routes can replace the volumes that move by sea.
Library Director Fired After Refusing To Remove Hundreds Of LGBT Books From Kids’ Section
When are these people going to learn to just leave the kids alone?
A Tennessee library board has voted 8-3 to remove its top librarian, Luanne James, after she refused to carry out an order to relocate hundreds of LGBT-themed books, Critical Race Theory (CRT) and feminist propaganda books from the children’s section of six Rutherford County branch libraries.
James was initially ordered to relocate books containing far-left ideology from the juvenile/children’s sections to the adult sections of libraries. The board cited concerns that the books promoted “gender confusion,” contained LGBT themes/characters, sexual themes, feminist topics, DEI, social justice and related content.
The decision stemmed from a broader state review of thousands of materials prompted by a Tennessee Secretary of State letter and federal guidance on gender-related content.
Actions within red states to transfer woke propaganda out of children’s spaces in school libraries and public libraries accelerated after viral complaints by parents who have read some of the horrific selections out loud at board meetings across the country. Activist librarians have become a plague, disregarding the age and innocence of the children involved for the sake of a cult-like political ideology.
UNREAL
A speaker was SHUT DOWN and REMOVED by security at @HoustonISD school board meeting after reading from a p**nographic book available to kids in the school library
Too graphic for a room of adults but totally ok for kids in school!
When the school board is angry at parents for calling out the smut they have in their children’s school library instead of being outraged over the content of the books themselves, it’s time to replace the entire board.
Beyond the overtly sexualized selections being planted in kids libraries across the US, there are numerous books teaching gender fluid theories with no foundation in scientific evidence, as well as books promoting critical race theory which twists history to fit the far-left narrative of “systemic racism”.
Luanne James had argued during the Rutherford Board hearing that moving the books to adult sections would violate First Amendment protections and go against her professional responsibility. Keep in mind, these books were not censored or thrown out by the Rutherford Board; children are simply required to ask their parents for permission to borrow them from the adult section of the library. This is not a violation of the First Amendment.
Parental rights supersede children’s access to content. Legally and morally, James and library directors like her are simply in the wrong, but they know this.
“I stand by my decision and I will not change my mind,” James said during the meeting. After the vote, her attorney read a statement on her behalf calling the firing unlawful. “Librarians should not be used as a filter for political agendas,” the statement said. “I stood up for the right to read, standing for the citizens of Rutherford County.”
Ironically, leftists tend to wrap themselves in the constitution when they are challenged on giving children politically charged propaganda to read. But when parents read these materials out loud in board meetings, those same leftists have them silenced and removed from the proceedings.
The woke left survives by hiding within legal loopholes, double standards and blatant hypocrisy. They thrive by targeting the easily manipulated minds of children and teens for early indoctrination. It is becoming clear that many people working within the public education system are only there to carry out this agenda. Their priority is not the children, their priority is the proliferation of “the message”.
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 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.
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.
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
Tehran’s Toll Booth For Hormuz Strait Divides Countries Into 3 Categories
The last several days have seen a limited number of foreign vessels successfully and safely cross the Strait of Hormuz for the first time, amid the ongoing de facto military blockage by Iran.
A group of several vessels, namely French, Japanese, and Oman-linked ships were reported to have crossed the strait at the end of this week. This included Malta-flagged ‘Kribi,’ owned by French shipping group CMA CGM, having exited the Gulf through an Iranian-approved corridor, broadcasting “owner France” – as we reported earlier.
Interestingly, its route was identified by the shipping sourcel Lloyd’s List as the “Tehran Tollbooth” – which references an emerging system imposed by Tehran that requires vessels to undergo vetting, disclose ownership and cargo details, as well as obtaining approval before transiting designated corridors.
Three additional tankers, including the LNG carrier ‘Sohar LNG,’ co-owned by Japan’s Mitsui O.S.K. Lines, also completed the crossing, reportedly by hugging the Omani coastline.
Mitsui confirmed the transit, stating the vessel is “the first Japan-linked vessel and the first LNG carrier” to exit the Gulf since the US-led war began.
As for more details on this emerging Tehran-erected toll booth: “Following a 90% plunge in traffic through the Strait of Hormuz, as reported by CNBC, Iran has established a highly controlled shipping corridor near Larak Island. The IRGC is now charging tolls starting at $1 per barrel of oil, payable in Chinese Yuan or stablecoins,” describes one source. This could amount to up to $2 million for each ship seeking passage.
As for the vetting process, Russian media – citing Al Jazeera – says there will be three categories:
Iranian authorities have developed a system for managing shipping in the Strait of Hormuz and ensuring passage for vessels from different countries depending on the level of their relations with Tehran, Qatar’s Al Jazeera reported.
According to the TV channel, under Iran’s scheme, all states are divided into three categories: “hostile,” “neutral,” and “friendly.” Countries in the first group will be prohibited from using the Strait of Hormuz, ships from “neutral” states will be subject to high fees, and “friendly” states will be granted the right of free passage through the strait.
Tehran has not provided a complete list of the three categories; however, according to Al Jazeera, virtually all Arab countries in the Persian Gulf are classified as “neutral” or “hostile” states. Under Iran’s plan, these states will either have to pay “substantial fees” or be completely barred from passing through the Strait of Hormuz.
As a reminder, Brent futures and WTI futures both closed Friday in triple-digit territory as traders are becoming increasingly alarmed not just of the crude oil and LNG shortage spreading worldwide but also of petrochemical supply disruptions that are inbound that could affect plastics production, the core material that is bedrock for the modern economy.
A minority of health care workers received an updated COVID-19 vaccine, according to a newly reported survey from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
Just 40.2 percent of health care personnel who responded to the survey said they received a COVID-19 shot between the fall of 2024 and early 2025, CDC researchers said on April 2.
The rate of vaccination was higher, 76.3 percent, for influenza.
The survey was conducted online from March 26 to April 17 in 2025, following the 2024–2025 respiratory virus season. The season begins in the fall of each year and runs into the next year.
Some 2,650 health care workers responded to the survey.
At the time, the CDC recommended influenza and COVID-19 vaccination for virtually all Americans aged 6 months and older, regardless of the number of prior doses. The CDC more recently narrowed its recommendations for those shots, citing factors such as uncertain risk-benefit profiles.
A federal judge blocked the updates in March.
The percentage of workers who took a COVID-19 vaccine increased from the prior season, when the rate was 31.3 percent, according to the newly released survey. The percentage of workers who received a flu shot remained about the same, though it is down from years prior to the COVID-19 pandemic.
CDC researchers said the increase in COVID-19 vaccination coverage may be from the vaccine for the 2024–2025 season becoming available one month earlier than the preceding year.
Workers aged 18 to 29 were most likely to receive a COVID-19 vaccine. Personnel aged 60 and up were more likely to receive an influenza immunization.
According to survey data, nearly four in 10 employers required influenza vaccination, and about 14 in 100 mandated COVID-19 vaccination. People who worked for employers who required vaccination were far more likely to have received the vaccines. Some 83 percent of workers required to receive a COVID-19 vaccine had received one, compared to 46 percent whose employer recommended COVID-19 vaccination and just 19 percent whose employer did not require or recommend vaccination.
CDC researchers said that the data could “help guide the development and implementation of evidence-based strategies to encourage vaccination, increase coverage, reduce influenza incidence among [health care personnel] and their patients, and limit strain on the health care system.”
The researchers said the findings supported actively promoting vaccination in places of business to increase influenza vaccination coverage among health care workers.
Health care workers who decline vaccination have said in previous surveys that they were worried about vaccine side effects and expressed distrust in health authorities.
The CDC published the study in its quasi-journal, Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report. The publication ensures reports align with CDC messaging and typically does not peer-review papers.
“Although most articles that appear in MMWR are not ‘peer-reviewed’ in the way that submissions to medical journals are, to ensure that the content of MMWR comports with CDC policy, every submission to MMWR undergoes a rigorous multilevel clearance process before publication,” the CDC said in a 2011 report. “By the time a report appears in MMWR, it reflects, or is consistent with, CDC policy.”
Limitations of the paper included the vaccination status being self-reported and unverified. Authors disclosed no potential conflicts of interest.
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.
