As of late March 2026, the jury in the landmark social media addiction lawsuit remains deadlocked after more than eight days of deliberations, with jurors signaling they are “having difficulty coming to a consensus with one defendant.” The case, tried in Los Angeles Superior Court, centers on K.G.M., a 20-year-old plaintiff from Chico, California, who alleges that Meta (Facebook and Instagram) and YouTube’s design practices contributed to compulsive use, body dysmorphia, anxiety, depression, and suicidal ideation. On March 24, the jury sent a note to Judge Carolyn B. Kuhl indicating this sticking point, prompting the judge to issue a deadlock admonition—a formal instruction to continue deliberating because a hung jury would require at least a partial retrial.
The jury’s struggle to reach unanimous consensus underscores the complexity of holding major tech platforms accountable for youth mental health harms. Unlike earlier settlements reached by TikTok and Snapchat in January 2026, the Meta and YouTube defendants have chosen to fight this case to trial, betting that jurors would find insufficient evidence that platform design directly caused the plaintiff’s diagnosed psychiatric injuries. However, the jury’s advancement to the damages phase suggests they may have already found liability on at least one defendant—meaning the question now is how much compensation the platform should pay, not whether they caused harm.
Table of Contents
- What Does the Jury’s “Difficulty Coming to Consensus” Actually Mean?
- How Did the Jury Move to Damages So Quickly If They’re Deadlocked?
- Who Is K.G.M., and What Claims Did She Bring?
- What Was Mark Zuckerberg’s Testimony, and Did It Help the Defendants?
- Why Did TikTok and Snapchat Settle Before Trial?
- What Happens If the Jury Remains Deadlocked?
- What Does This Trial Mean for Future Social Media Litigation?
What Does the Jury’s “Difficulty Coming to Consensus” Actually Mean?
When a jury sends a note saying it cannot reach agreement on one defendant, it typically signals a hung jury on that specific claim—meaning jurors disagree fundamentally about whether that defendant’s conduct met the legal standard for liability. In this case, the jury explicitly noted difficulty with one defendant, which likely means some jurors believe meta or YouTube (whichever defendant is the source of dispute) bears responsibility for the plaintiff’s harms, while others do not. The judge’s response—a deadlock admonition—is a last-resort tool that tells jurors their failure to decide will impose significant burdens (a mistrial, new trial, wasted judicial resources) and asks them to make a good-faith effort to find common ground.
Judge Kuhl’s instruction also explained that if the jury deadlocks on one defendant, the case would require “at least a partial retrial,” meaning the parties would have to try the liability phase again with a new jury for whichever defendant the original jury could not decide on. This is a serious consequence: it extends litigation timelines, increases costs, and keeps both the plaintiff and defendants in legal limbo. For the plaintiff’s legal team, a partial retrial is a setback but not a loss. For the defendants, it means no final victory and continued liability exposure.
How Did the Jury Move to Damages So Quickly If They’re Deadlocked?
The jury advanced to considering damages on March 21, 2026—before the deliberation difficulties emerged on March 24. This suggests the jury voted to find liability on at least one defendant during an earlier phase of deliberations, but later encountered disagreement when trying to apply that liability finding to the second defendant or when trying to reach a unanimous damage amount. Class action and personal injury juries often work backward in this manner: they first decide “is the defendant liable?” and “how much harm occurred?” before returning to fine-tune damage awards.
However, moving to damages does not guarantee a full verdict will be reached. A jury can vote unanimously that one defendant is liable, unanimously that harm occurred, and still deadlock on the damage amount or deadlock on the second defendant’s liability. The fact that the jury reached the damages phase is therefore a mixed signal: it shows some progress toward final resolution, but the subsequent note about difficulty with one defendant suggests that progress has hit a wall. The judge’s deadlock admonition may push the jury to resume deliberating and either reach a compromise (a lower or higher damage award) or return to the liability question and re-examine whether one defendant truly meets the legal threshold.
Who Is K.G.M., and What Claims Did She Bring?
K.G.M. began using YouTube at age six and Instagram at age nine, according to trial testimony and court filings. Her lawsuit alleges that these platforms employ design features—algorithmic recommendation systems, infinite scroll, notification mechanisms, and engagement optimization—specifically intended to maximize user engagement, especially among youth whose brains are still developing. Over years of compulsive use, K.G.M.
Claims she developed body dysmorphia from constant exposure to curated, filtered images of her peers; anxiety and depression fueled by comparison and social pressure; and suicidal ideation directly traceable to the psychological impact of these platforms. What makes K.G.M.’s case distinct from earlier class action claims is that she is suing on behalf of a class of similarly situated minors and young adults who used Meta and YouTube products during their formative years, and she is one of the first plaintiffs to bring a jury trial on these claims. Previous social media litigation often settled before trial or was dismissed on summary judgment. K.G.M.’s case reached jury verdict because both sides believed they had evidence to support their position: the plaintiff’s team argued internal company documents, expert psychology testimony, and K.G.M.’s own health records showed a causal link between platform use and harm; the defense argued that correlation is not causation, that K.G.M.’s psychiatric conditions may have other origins, and that the platforms do not intentionally “addict” users in the way opioid manufacturers deliberately marketed dangerous drugs.
What Was Mark Zuckerberg’s Testimony, and Did It Help the Defendants?
On February 18, 2026, Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg took the witness stand in person—a historic moment, as this was reportedly his first-ever jury testimony in any trial. Zuckerberg testified about Meta’s product design philosophy, the company’s internal research on youth mental health, and whether Meta intentionally structured Instagram and Facebook to addict young users. The plaintiff’s legal team likely sought to extract admissions about Meta’s knowledge of harms; the defense sought to have him explain that platform features are designed for engagement (a business necessity) rather than addiction (a deliberate harm).
The jury’s subsequent advancement to the damages phase suggests that Zuckerberg’s testimony, whatever its content, did not persuade all jurors to completely exonerate Meta. If his testimony had been uniformly compelling to jurors, they may not have found liability or may have dismissed the case entirely. Instead, the jury moved forward, implying that some jurors believed Meta’s conduct met the legal threshold for liability despite Zuckerberg’s testimony. Whether the jury believed Zuckerberg is irrelevant to the current deadlock; what matters is that the jury is now split on one defendant, and Zuckerberg’s presence in the trial record may become a focal point in their ongoing deliberations.
Why Did TikTok and Snapchat Settle Before Trial?
On January 27, 2026—the exact day jury selection was scheduled to begin in K.G.M. v. Meta, YouTube, TikTok, and Snap—both TikTok and Snapchat (Snap Inc.) settled the lawsuit. TikTok’s settlement terms remain confidential, as do Snap’s terms, but the timing is crucial: both companies chose to pay confidential settlements rather than risk a jury verdict. Their decision to settle removes them from the current jury trial, so the remaining defendants (Meta and YouTube) are facing the jury alone.
The settlement strategy reveals something important about defendant risk assessment. Executives at TikTok and Snap evidently calculated that the cost of settlement (undisclosed, but likely substantial) was lower than the risk of a jury verdict, which could have exposed them to hundreds of millions in damages and set a legal precedent for future litigation. By settling, they avoid precedent-setting verdicts and limit their exposure to a fixed, confidential amount. Meta and YouTube, however, chose to litigate, suggesting their legal teams either believed they had stronger defenses or calculated that a precedent-setting loss would be more damaging than settlement. The jury’s current deadlock may vindicate their decision to fight, or it may be the beginning of their loss if the jury breaks the deadlock and returns a verdict against them.
What Happens If the Jury Remains Deadlocked?
If the jury cannot reach consensus on the deadlocked defendant(s), the result is a mistrial on those claims. A mistrial does not exonerate the defendant; it simply means the jury could not agree on liability within the trial’s timeframe and rules. The case then resets: the parties can either settle (now that they have jury signals about how some jurors viewed the evidence), pursue a retrial with a new jury, or appeal (if grounds exist). A partial mistrial on one defendant and a verdict on the other is possible; for example, the jury could return a full verdict against YouTube while declaring themselves deadlocked on Meta.
Judge Kuhl’s admonition is designed to delay this outcome by asking jurors to reconsider their positions. The judge essentially says: “This case is too important to abandon. Try harder to find agreement.” Sometimes such admonitions work, and jurors compromise and reach a verdict. Other times, jurors remain entrenched, and a mistrial is declared. There is no legal mechanism to force jurors to agree; the deadlock admonition is the strongest persuasion available.
What Does This Trial Mean for Future Social Media Litigation?
The K.G.M. trial is a bellwether—a test case that signals how juries and courts view social media platform liability. If the jury breaks the deadlock and returns a verdict for the plaintiff, it could open the door to thousands of similar lawsuits from other youth who claim they were harmed by social media. If the jury deadlocks or returns a verdict for the defendants, it sends a signal that juries are skeptical of claims linking platform design to individual psychiatric harms, at least under current legal theories and evidence.
A verdict is still expected in Spring or Summer 2026, assuming the jury continues deliberating and reaches a decision. Tech platforms, regulators, and plaintiff attorneys are watching closely. If Meta and YouTube lose, expect a cascade of filings from class action attorneys seeking to represent millions of youth. If they win or achieve a mistrial, expect defendants to argue that jury verdicts vindicate their design practices and weaken regulatory arguments for mandatory design changes. Either way, this case is laying groundwork for the next phase of tech accountability litigation.
You Might Also Like
- Jury Remains Undecided in Social Media Addiction Trial
- Social Media Addiction Case Update as Jury Remains Undecided
- Social Media Addiction Lawsuit Still Awaiting Jury Verdict
Open Settlements You Can Claim Now
Browse current class action settlements accepting claims — several require no proof of purchase: