icon on Federal judges are increasingly turning to advisory juries in complex, high-profile tech disputes as a way to balance legal rigor with public input. Unlike traditional juries, advisory juries do not issue binding verdicts. Instead, their findings serve as guidance while the judge retains final decision-making authority.
U.S. District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers has recently used this approach in cases involving OpenAI, Microsoft, Meta, and Elon Musk, describing it as an effective way to handle disputes that are both legally complex and socially sensitive. Advisory juries provide what experts describe as a “reality check,” helping judges evaluate key issues such as credibility, harm, and fairness through the perspective of everyday citizens.
One recent example is Musk’s lawsuit over OpenAI’s transition to a for-profit model. After a three-week trial, an advisory jury found that his claims were time-barred, and Judge Gonzalez Rogers quickly adopted that finding to dismiss the case.
Legal experts say advisory juries can also improve judicial efficiency. When a judge handles a complex case alone, it can take months to draft a detailed ruling and may delay other cases. Input from a jury can help move decisions forward more efficiently. Their involvement may also strengthen rulings on appeal, since appellate courts are often more deferential to factual findings supported by multiple jurors rather than a single judge.
Joe Barber, an IP attorney at Howard & Howard, explained that advisory juries are especially useful in cases involving equitable claims. In these cases, judges must decide outcomes based on disputed facts, even though juries cannot issue binding decisions. He noted that juries are highly effective at resolving factual disputes and provide an important backstop for judges while giving parties a more traditional trial experience.
There are still trade-offs. Advisory juries can increase cost and complexity, and their recommendations may create confusion about who ultimately made the decision. For that reason, some judges choose not to use them.
Overall, advisory juries are emerging as a flexible judicial tool. They help bridge public perspective and legal authority in some of today’s most consequential technology cases.
This summary is based on the Law360 article, "Why Big Tech Advisory Juries In 'Socially Explosive' Suits" by Dorothy Atkins, published May 22, 2026.