Thanks for clarifying this; it would have been nice if it was stated in the article! Of course the $190m figure is ludicrous, but it’s not like the jury was for

Thanks for clarifying this; it would have been nice if it was stated in the article! Of course the $190m figure is ludicrous, but it’s not like the jury was forced to choose $190m or zero. They must have been told to apply U.S. federal defamation law, and the article doesn’t explain what that means. If the question the jury answered was derived from the First Amendment, the outcome could well be different in countries that have defamation laws but not the First Amendment. The demanded sum of $190m is irrelevant to the jury’s decision that there was nothing to award damages for.