Texas trial attorney Mark Lanier leveraged advanced artificial intelligence tools to secure a landmark $6 million verdict against Meta and Google in a social media addiction case, marking a significant milestone in the legal industry’s adoption of AI-driven litigation strategy. The month-long trial, which featured cross-examination of Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg, concluded with a jury ruling that both companies were negligent for failing to warn users about the dangers of their platforms. During the proceedings, Lanier’s team utilized Boodlebox, an enterprise-grade AI platform that aggregates multiple large language models. Rather than relying on off-the-shelf applications, Lanier negotiated a custom, six-figure annual license designed specifically for high-stakes litigation. The platform enabled collaborative, real-time document analysis, allowing the legal team to process thousands of hours of trial transcripts, evidence, and jury feedback within a controlled digital workspace. Lanier reported that the system functioned as an extension of his decades of legal expertise, effectively multiplying his pretrial preparation capacity and allowing him to complete in ten hours what would traditionally require thirty. The integration of AI into the trial workflow was highly structured. Each day, the team compiled court transcripts and jury observations, then distributed targeted queries across different AI models to identify critical documents, refine courtroom arguments, and anticipate opposing counsel’s strategies. Lanier emphasized that the technology was deployed with strict oversight, explicitly rejecting automated brief drafting or unchecked research. When the AI occasionally produced inaccuracies, Lanier manually verified all outputs against the official record, reinforcing a hybrid model where machine efficiency supplements human legal judgment rather than replacing it. The $6 million jury award establishes a critical precedent for thousands of pending lawsuits targeting social media platforms over alleged psychological harm. Beyond the verdict, Lanier’s methodology demonstrates how legal professionals can navigate the intersection of artificial intelligence and courtroom practice. By maintaining direct control over model selection, prompt engineering, and factual validation, his firm has established a replicable framework for responsible AI utilization in litigation. Lanier, who maintains a dedicated internal team to monitor weekly advancements in generative AI, indicated that his current protocols will significantly evolve in future cases. His approach underscores a shifting paradigm within the legal sector, where AI is increasingly viewed not as a replacement for professional expertise, but as a force multiplier that requires rigorous oversight, institutional knowledge integration, and continuous technical education. As litigation against major technology firms intensifies, the controlled AI deployment demonstrated in this Texas trial is likely to inform industry standards for digital evidence management and cross-examination preparation.