The Los Angeles bellwether trial in the landmark social media addiction lawsuit remains deadlocked after eight days of jury deliberations. As of March 24-25, 2026, jurors have been deliberating approximately six hours per day since March 12, 2026, without reaching a verdict on whether Meta (Facebook and Instagram) and Google (YouTube) were negligent in their app designs and whether that negligence contributed to the plaintiff’s mental health harms. Judge Carolyn B. Kuhl has indicated the case may need to be at least partially retried if the jury deadlocks on any defendant.
This trial represents the first case to reach a verdict stage in a rapidly expanding litigation wave, with over 2,200 social media addiction cases now consolidated into multidistrict litigation (MDL), and it carries significant implications for how courts will evaluate claims that social platforms intentionally designed addictive features that harm young users. The case centers on K.G.M. (identified in court as Kaley GM), now 19-20 years old, who alleges that Instagram, Snapchat, and TikTok caused her depression, anxiety, and body dysmorphia. While Snapchat and TikTok settled before trial began—TikTok reached a settlement on January 27, 2026, and Snap Inc. settled earlier with an undisclosed amount—the jury’s inability to reach consensus after extended deliberations suggests the core question of corporate negligence in app design is genuinely contentious and complex.
Table of Contents
- What’s Happening in the Jury Room Right Now?
- The Plaintiff’s Documented Harms and Legal Theory
- Why Meta and Google Remained as Defendants While Others Settled
- Pre-Trial Settlements: TikTok and Snap’s Exit Strategy
- The Broader Litigation Landscape: Over 2,200 Cases Pending
- The New Mexico Meta Verdict: A Separate But Related Win
- What Comes Next: Future Bellwether Trials and Litigation Timeline
What’s Happening in the Jury Room Right Now?
The jury‘s extended deliberations without a verdict signal genuine disagreement among jurors about the evidence. After eight days of deliberating (with jury instructions given on March 12), jurors appear split on critical questions: Did meta and Google design their platforms to be addictive? If so, did that design directly cause the plaintiff’s documented mental health problems? These are not straightforward questions even with expert testimony, because they require jurors to link specific design features (algorithmic feeds, notification systems, infinite scroll, algorithmic recommendations) to psychological outcomes while accounting for other potential causes of depression and anxiety in a teenager’s life.
Judge Kuhl’s warning that the case may require partial retrial if jurors deadlock on any defendant adds significant pressure. Rather than a simple impasse resulting in dismissal, a partial deadlock could mean retrials for only Meta or only Google, fragmenting the bellwether trial’s value. This complexity may be why deliberations have stretched longer than typical product liability cases—jurors are wrestling with both the factual causation (did the app design cause harm?) and legal standards (what duty did these companies owe to the user?).
The Plaintiff’s Documented Harms and Legal Theory
Kaley GM’s case rests on allegations that three platforms—Instagram, Snapchat, and TikTok—caused specific, diagnosable mental health injuries: depression, anxiety, and body dysmorphia. In the context of social media litigation, this specificity matters. The plaintiff’s legal team must show not just that she used social media, but that the defendants’ intentional design choices created a causal pathway to these specific harms.
However, this causation standard creates a significant challenge: many teenagers experience depression and anxiety from multiple sources (school stress, peer relationships, family dynamics, biological predisposition), so isolating the platform’s contribution requires the jury to evaluate expert testimony distinguishing between competing causes. The defendants’ defense likely hinges on the fact that mental health in adolescents is multifactorial. They may argue that the plaintiff’s depression, anxiety, and body image concerns could stem from normal adolescent development, peer pressure at school, family dynamics, or genetic predisposition to mood disorders—and that social media use, while present, was not the decisive cause. This is why the jury’s deliberations may be prolonged: jurors must evaluate competing narratives about causation, and reasonable people can disagree about whether the evidence supports one theory or the other.
Why Meta and Google Remained as Defendants While Others Settled
The survival of Meta and Google in this trial while TikTok and Snap settled reveals something important about settlement incentives in addiction litigation. TikTok settled on January 27, 2026, on the eve of trial, and Snap Inc. settled before trial as well, both settling on claims that their platforms employed addictive design practices. These pre-trial settlements suggest that the defendants assessed the legal risk as significant enough to warrant payment rather than face a jury verdict.
Yet Meta and Google chose to proceed to trial, indicating either greater confidence in their defense, disagreement with the settlement valuations, or a strategic calculation that a defense verdict would be worth the litigation costs and reputational risk. The distinction is meaningful for class members monitoring this case. Settlements typically provide concrete compensation to users, while jury verdicts may take months or years to appeal before any payment occurs. However, a loss at trial could also expose defendants to punitive damages or broader injunctive relief (court orders requiring design changes), outcomes often more significant than settlement amounts. The jury’s deadlock, if it continues, may force both sides back toward settlement negotiations rather than risking a partial retrial or an uncertain appellate process.
Pre-Trial Settlements: TikTok and Snap’s Exit Strategy
Both TikTok and Snapchat settled before the bellwether trial began, removing themselves from jury consideration and avoiding the risk of a liability verdict. TikTok’s settlement was announced on January 27, 2026, specifically cited as concerning “alleged addictive design practices,” while Snap Inc. settled with terms undisclosed but also related to addiction and youth harm claims. These exits raise a practical question for class members: Do settlements in similar cases predict outcomes? The answer is mixed.
Settlement often reflects a desire to avoid litigation costs and reputational damage rather than an admission that the evidence at trial is overwhelming. Conversely, it can signal recognition that the liability risk is genuine. For individuals considering whether to join these lawsuits or wait for a verdict, the settlements offer a baseline expectation: some platforms believe the risk is worth paying to settle. However, waiting for a verdict in the Meta and Google case could yield either a larger recovery (if the jury finds in the plaintiff’s favor) or no recovery (if the jury finds for defendants). This risk-reward calculus differs for each person depending on their tolerance for uncertainty and their time horizon for compensation.
The Broader Litigation Landscape: Over 2,200 Cases Pending
The Los Angeles bellwether trial is just the first case to reach the verdict stage in a massive wave of social media addiction litigation. As of March 2026, between 2,243 and 2,407 social media addiction cases are consolidated into multidistrict litigation (MDL), a legal mechanism used to manage hundreds or thousands of similar claims together. This consolidation means that the outcome of the Los Angeles trial—whether a verdict for the plaintiff, for the defendants, or a deadlock—will influence settlement negotiations and litigation strategy for thousands of pending cases. However, a critical limitation exists: each case involves different plaintiffs with different injuries, different defendants, and different use patterns, so a verdict in one case does not automatically determine the outcome in another.
The sheer number of pending cases (over 2,200) also creates negotiating use. Defendants like Meta and Google face the prospect of hundreds more trials if they lose the bellwether case, a prospect that typically motivates settlement. Conversely, plaintiff attorneys face years of litigation and the possibility of losing cases on factual grounds (jury disagreement on causation, for instance) even if the legal theory is sound. The jury’s current deadlock, if prolonged, may signal that this factual dispute is genuine and will plague the litigation going forward, potentially fragmenting the cases into winners and losers rather than producing a uniform settlement or class action recovery.
The New Mexico Meta Verdict: A Separate But Related Win
On March 24, 2026—the same week the Los Angeles jury was deliberating—a separate jury in New Mexico reached a verdict against Meta. That jury ordered Meta to pay $375 million to the state of New Mexico for violating the state’s consumer protection law by enabling child sexual exploitation on Facebook, Instagram, and WhatsApp. While this verdict addresses child sexual exploitation rather than addiction specifically, it shares a common theme with the addiction lawsuit: that Meta’s platform design and moderation practices created conditions for harm to minors.
The $375 million penalty demonstrates that juries are willing to impose substantial damages on Meta for youth-related harms, a fact that may influence settlement discussions in the addiction litigation. However, the cases differ in a meaningful way: the New Mexico verdict addressed exploitation and abuse (crimes committed on the platform), while the Los Angeles case concerns platform design features that allegedly caused psychological injury. A jury may find it easier to assess liability for failing to prevent sexual exploitation than for causing addiction through algorithm design, a distinction that could affect the outcome in Los Angeles despite the New Mexico precedent. Still, the timing and scale of the New Mexico verdict sends a signal to tech defendants that courts and juries are increasingly skeptical of arguments that platforms bear no responsibility for youth harms.
What Comes Next: Future Bellwether Trials and Litigation Timeline
If the Los Angeles jury deadlocks, Judge Kuhl has indicated that at least a partial retrial will be necessary, a process that could extend litigation for months or years. Even if the jury reaches a verdict, the losing party will likely appeal, delaying any judgment and settlement discussions. Beyond the current impasse, two additional bellwether trials are scheduled for June 15 and August 6, 2026, with Judge Rogers overseeing the scheduling.
These future trials will test whether the factual and legal issues that are deadlocking jurors now are unique to the Los Angeles case or systemic problems that will plague the entire litigation. The broader trajectory suggests that resolution of the social media addiction litigation—whether through jury verdicts, mass settlement, or court-mandated mediation—will take years. For individuals considering claims, this extended timeline means patience is required, but it also means that each verdict and settlement will be public knowledge, allowing later plaintiffs to make informed decisions about settlement values and litigation prospects. The deadlock in Los Angeles, while frustrating for those seeking closure, provides valuable information about how juries will assess causation in addiction cases.