This verdict shows that – while hardly a substitute for in-person jury service – virtual teleconferencing can be used to great effect to ensure that justice is served. Many in the legal profession doubted that jury trials could work remotely – but now they have 411 million reasons why they can. The key takeaway from this case seems to be that in order to be successful with virtual trials, Court and Practitioners need to take special care to ensure that only the issues strictly in dispute go to a jury. In this particular case, the jury was only considering the issue of damages, rather than a conventional and drawn out trial about liability. While the nature of this type of proceeding may lead to Court’s needing to be more activist or decisional in pre-trial proceedings, the outcome bodes well for the ability for the public to have continued access to the legal system in these unprecedented times.