META stock is a gamble due to the trial outcome; a negative judgment could break support and lead to a retest at 400, while a win could see a return to 780.

This week a trial against Meta seeking 1.4 trillion dollars in damages began in the great city of Oakland, California.

Meta Platforms started the week at $580 per share. It's a Friday. Hopefully you guys are doing well. Uh, Meta not doing better, down over 5% finished the week at 550.

This comes as the opening arguments in that federal trial that we talked about over child safety allegations. This was brought by numerous attorney generals across the different great states of the United States against Meta which is alleging that the company is liable for children's anxiety and in some cases sadly deaths.

Now, how does the trial work? There is an eight-person jury. They will return a verdict, but that is an advisory verdict only. Judge Gonzales Rogers who's presided among other cases that we've talked about here on the Fang Stock Recap Show over the past six years which we've been doing this including the Epic versus Apple case as it relates to App Store fees.

Also, more recently the Elon Musk and Sam Altman trial. She can impose civil penalties and order changes to the platform. She can actually change social media, obviously all pending appeal, which is, you know, overriding all of this.

If you're watching this outside the United States, just understand whatever happens here, in some cases, and usually can be appealed. Now, in terms of the ruling, she's going to rule on the merits of the law.

Is the case typically for judges. However, you're out here in California. Not only are you out here in California, you're in Oakland, which is just nutso. When you go to Oakland, it is like bizarro land.

It is like a third world country in some cases. They've obviously lost all their sports teams from the A's to the Warriors to the Raiders, and for good reason. The city is an absolute mess.

So, it wouldn't surprise me. Whoever's on this jury, even the judge, they're probably a little kooky. But, if she concludes that Meta have misled her about internal decision-making, that's precisely the state attorney general's theory, she is likely to respond with unusual force. That is according to legal experts.

Now, in terms of the ruling, she's going to rule on the merits of the law. Is the case typically for judges. However, you're out here in California. Not only are you out here in California, you're in Oakland, which is just nutso.

When you go to Oakland, it is like bizarro land. It is like a third world country in some cases. They've obviously lost all their sports teams from the A's to the Warriors to the Raiders, and for good reason.

The city is an absolute mess. So, it wouldn't surprise me. Whoever's on this jury, even the judge, they're probably a little kooky. But, if she concludes that Meta have misled her about internal decision-making, that's precisely the state attorney general's theory, she is likely to respond with unusual force. That is according to legal experts.

Now, California deputy AG Megan O'Neil got her opening arguments and framed Meta's business model in four verbs. Essentially, they hook users, they hold them, they harvest their data, and then, more importantly than all of this, they hide the truth from the public.

Because, I don't necessarily think hooking them, holding them, and harvesting their data, at this stage of social media, is necessarily something that you can find a company over a trillion dollars for, even several billions of dollars for.

But, if you hide that truth from the public, that is where things could get elevated.

Now, the prosecution argument is that Meta has designed features, intentional design features, and not just user-generated content, which is causing anxiety and and for children and young girls especially to feel maybe body shamed or whatever it happens to be.

They are attacking this at the meta executive and the engineer level, and they're trying to route around section 230, which more broadly gives companies like meta some immunity to what is being posted on the platform.

If stuff is being posted on the platform, meta is largely immune from different types of litigation as it relates to that. So, if somebody posts something on the platform that harms another user, causes another user to do something, meta will argue section 230 and usually, somewhat successfully.

Now, the defense actually took the stance. Meta's corporate attorney, Paul Schmidt, took an unusual approach and actually conceded the uncontested ground first in this case. He said that some under 13s lie about their age.

That is probably a fact. Some teens struggle with time management. That's probably also a fact. And some users post negative content. We know absolutely that's a fact. Now, meta is going to argue that their executives are doing everything they can to protect users, and obviously the plaintiffs in this case are going to argue that they didn't do enough.

Now, a lead witness, a former engineer called Arturo Behar, I think, was the first state's witness. He says that meta has a culture of move fast and break things. That is not unusual.

In fact, a judge from Oakland, California is probably not even going to sympathize with that. That has been the culture inside of San Francisco for three or four decades, well before meta got their start there.

So, I don't think that is really going to move the needle. He also says, "You cannot trust Mark Zuckerberg with kids." That is an awesome quote, but that also is someone else's opinion that I'm sure Meta's defense could argue that is not true.

Now, more importantly, this witness said that Meta's safety features were designed to fail because they're opt-in settings rather than default. I think what Meta would argue is the settings are there.

The user, the parents of these children have control over some of this. Meta is not forcing them to even open up their phone, let alone to be on Instagram all day. Amber Alert, Amber Alert, you can be a parent these days and you can cut your kids off. Meta is going to argue all of that.

Now, in terms of cross-examination, the star witness conceded that teams were staffed with qualified people that he respected and none of the risk had been solved. This was the first week of the trial that it is expected to stretch out maybe as long as six or seven weeks.

And I obviously will keep you updated as we move forward.

Meta, not doing better. We talked about this last week. I believe we were set up here on the moving averages and I and I've talked about it. Hopefully, you guys are seeing it here.

Once these moving averages turn negative and you get under them, it is hard resistance. Very hard to get above these, both technically, fundamentally. I mean, you got a court case, you got all these things playing with Meta.

We got rejected here. If you like Meta, clear areas where I probably don't want to see a test too much lower down at 518. So, some people would view this, well, heck, I don't got a lot of downside here.

I got $20 in downside, $30 in downside with upside like, hey, we win this court case, we lease some compute to Anthropic and blah blah, we're back up at 780. That's a scenario I could see.

The other scenario is some crazy judge in Oakland, with all due respect, your honor, just in case I appear in front of your highness. Just in case I get into some trouble. With all due respect, you could put out a very logical judgment and find this company billions, if not trillions of dollars, and you could break support and retest areas at 400. Woo, looks like a gamble to me.