One of the hardest strategic questions for plaintiffs' lawyers is when and how to introduce a jury to massive damages numbers. In cases involving egregious conduct—like the $1.2 billion verdict against Alex Jones for defaming Sandy Hook families—jurors may be eager to punish a defendant they deeply dislike.
But in business disputes or patent infringement cases, for example, asking for billions can backfire. Jurors may see such sums as incomprehensible or greedy. The challenge is to advocate aggressively for your client without alienating jurors, who may themselves be struggling to make ends meet.
In a recent privacy trial against Google in the Northern District of California, which resulted in a nearly $500 million verdict, David Boies executed one of the best strategies for tackling this issue early. David confronted the issue directly in his opening statement. Before stating the ultimate damages figure, he walked jurors through small, comprehensible numbers—damages per user per month—then showed how those figures scale to the total. He acknowledged openly that the final number would feel staggering. This combination of transparency and simple math gave jurors a roadmap and likely earned credibility for both David and the damages figure. And explicitly acknowledging discomfort with large numbers can blunt defense arguments that the plaintiff is overreaching.
Jury selection is equally critical. Courts often allow voir dire questions about jurors' willingness to award damages in the billions if liability is proven. Introducing specific numbers during voir dire serves two purposes: it desensitizes jurors to the scale of damages and helps identify those who might resist a large award on principle. Watching facial expressions and body language can be as revealing as jurors' verbal responses.
Finally, research shows that jurors will become more comfortable with large damages numbers if they are tied to concrete and relatable harms. For example, tying damages to lost jobs, destroyed businesses, unfair windfalls to the defendant, or the fair value of years of stolen innovation helps make the number seem less abstract and more digestible. Numbers resonate more when they are connected to human impact rather than existing in isolation on a verdict sheet.
Asking a jury for billions is always a credibility test. The most effective strategies blend early groundwork in voir dire and opening statements, careful anchoring, humanized storytelling, and transparent math. When done well, these techniques allow jurors to see that a billion-dollar verdict is not an outlandish ask—but the only fair outcome.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
