The jury in the landmark Los Angeles social media addiction trial has not reached a verdict and is actively struggling to reach consensus on at least one defendant, as of March 24, 2026. According to recent reports, the jury notified the court that it was having difficulty coming to agreement, prompting Judge Carolyn B. Kuhl to warn that if consensus cannot be achieved on any defendant, a mistrial on that defendant would result in a partial retrial.
This means that even though jury deliberations began on March 13, 2026—more than 10 days ago—the panel remains deadlocked on one or more critical liability and damages questions in the first major social media addiction case to reach trial. For context, this case brought by plaintiff K.G.M., age 20 from Chico, California, alleges that Meta and YouTube employed “addictive practices” and “engineered addiction” that harmed the teenager’s mental health and well-being.
Table of Contents
- What Does a Jury Deadlock Mean in the Social Media Addiction Trial?
- Why Is Jury Deadlock Happening in This Case?
- What Happened Before Trial Started—The Pre-Trial Settlements?
- What Is the Jury Actually Deciding—Liability and Damages?
- How Does One Case Become a Precedent for Hundreds of Pending Lawsuits?
- The New Mexico Meta Verdict—How Does It Relate?
- What Comes Next—Mistrial, Retrial, or Verdict?
What Does a Jury Deadlock Mean in the Social Media Addiction Trial?
A jury deadlock means the 12 jurors cannot reach unanimous agreement on one or more of the verdict questions they have been asked to decide. In this trial, the jury is weighing questions about whether meta and YouTube are liable for damages caused by allegedly addictive social media design, and if so, how much compensation should be awarded. When a jury cannot unanimously agree on a defendant—in this case, potentially Meta, YouTube, or both—that defendant’s case results in a mistrial on those specific issues. This does not mean the plaintiff loses; it means the case on that defendant must be retried before a new jury.
The judge’s recent warning signals that the court is aware of the impasse and is preparing contingency plans. Under the law, judges can declare a mistrial if a jury is “hopelessly deadlocked” and cannot reach a verdict despite continued deliberation. However, judges typically attempt to encourage the jury to continue working before making that declaration. In this trial, the jury has been deliberating for over a week, which is not an unusually long time for a complex civil case involving competing scientific testimony about psychological addiction, platform algorithm design, and damages calculations.
Why Is Jury Deadlock Happening in This Case?
social media addiction liability is legally complex and scientifically contested. The jury must evaluate expert testimony from psychologists, neuroscientists, and social media engineers who provided conflicting opinions on whether platforms intentionally designed addictive features, whether those features cause documented harm, and whether that harm is quantifiable in dollars. One defendant may be viewed as more culpable than another based on how the evidence was presented, the specific features each platform employs, and how early each company learned about addiction risks. For instance, if the jury believes Meta knowingly implemented infinite scroll and algorithmic recommendation systems specifically to drive engagement regardless of harm, they may find Meta liable. However, they might view YouTube’s conduct differently if the evidence suggests YouTube’s addictive features were byproducts of engagement optimization rather than deliberate harm. This distinction—intent versus negligence—often divides jury consensus.
Additionally, the jury may have disagreed internally on damages. One juror might believe the plaintiff deserves $50 million for decades of compromised attention and mental health effects; another might believe $5 million is appropriate. These arithmetic disagreements also prevent unanimity. However, if the jury eventually agrees on one defendant and remains deadlocked on another, the judge will declare a mistrial only on the deadlocked defendant. That means the case will be retried on that defendant alone, while the other’s verdict stands. This prevents endless retrials while still allowing justice on the issues the jury could decide.
What Happened Before Trial Started—The Pre-Trial Settlements?
Before trial began, two defendants settled out of court: Snapchat and TikTok. Both companies agreed to settle their portions of the case, removing them from the jury’s consideration. This means the jury’s verdict will address only Meta and YouTube. The fact that Snapchat and TikTok chose to settle rather than litigate suggests those companies concluded the risk of an adverse verdict or a lengthy trial was not worth defending.
Settlements typically involve the company paying money to the plaintiff in exchange for dismissal without admission of wrongdoing, though terms are often confidential. The pre-trial settlements might influence how the jury views Meta and YouTube. The jury may reason that if Snapchat and TikTok settled, it suggests their conduct was risky enough to warrant payment—and if Meta and YouTube are similar, they should be held liable too. Conversely, the jury might view settlements as tactical decisions unrelated to guilt, focusing instead on the specific evidence presented at trial for Meta and YouTube.
What Is the Jury Actually Deciding—Liability and Damages?
The jury is tasked with two primary questions: (1) Are Meta and YouTube liable for harm caused by addictive social media design? and (2) If liable, how much should they pay in damages? On liability, the jury evaluates whether the platforms owed a duty of care to users like the plaintiff, whether they breached that duty by knowingly designing addictive features, whether those breaches caused the plaintiff’s harm (compromised attention span, anxiety, sleep disruption, mental health issues), and whether that harm is legally compensable. On damages, the jury must calculate the appropriate monetary award. This requires weighing the plaintiff’s age (20 years old), the duration of alleged harm (likely 7+ years of teenage exposure to the platforms), and the severity of documented psychological injury. Damages models presented by expert witnesses typically involve lifetime lost productivity, mental health treatment costs, and compensation for reduced quality of life.
One plaintiff’s case alone may yield a verdict of anywhere from $5 million to several hundred million dollars, depending on the jury’s view of the harm’s extent. A key limitation: even if the jury awards $50 million or $100 million in this single case, the defendant can appeal the verdict, reducing or reversing the award. Additionally, if there is a partial mistrial and a retrial occurs, the new jury might award a different amount. Plaintiffs in social media addiction cases should understand that the initial verdict is often not the final number.
How Does One Case Become a Precedent for Hundreds of Pending Lawsuits?
This case is the first social media addiction lawsuit to reach jury trial and verdict in the United States. Hundreds of similar lawsuits are currently pending in various state and federal courts, most of which are on hold waiting to see how this “bellwether” case turns out. A bellwether case is a leading case whose outcome signals how similar cases might be decided, influencing settlement negotiations, legal strategy, and settlement class formations. If the jury returns a substantial verdict for the plaintiff—say, $50 million or more—defendants will face enormous liability exposure across hundreds of cases. That pressure will likely accelerate settlement discussions in pending cases.
Conversely, if the jury returns a defense verdict (finds Meta and YouTube not liable) or a very small award, plaintiffs’ attorneys may abandon some pending cases as economically unfeasible. A partial mistrial (deadlock on one defendant) creates mixed precedent: it signals the jury could not fully agree, which may embolden defendants to fight harder in related cases while also demonstrating that juries take the issue seriously. However, one important caveat: a jury verdict in California is not binding on juries in other states. A federal court’s decision or a large settlement often carries more weight in shaping national litigation trends than a single state jury verdict. Judges and attorneys in New York, Texas, or other states may reach different conclusions about addiction liability based on their own interpretation of the law and evidence.
The New Mexico Meta Verdict—How Does It Relate?
On March 24-25, 2026—the same time this jury reported deadlock—a separate case in New Mexico resulted in a $375 million verdict against Meta. That case focused on child endangerment and “unconscionable” trade practices related to Meta’s role in helping harm to children, rather than social media addiction specifically. While both cases involve Meta and alleged harm to young users, the legal theories differ. The New Mexico case emphasizes Meta’s failure to protect children from predators and harmful content, whereas the Los Angeles case alleges Meta’s addictive design itself caused psychological harm.
The proximity of these two verdicts—occurring within the same 24-48 hour window—may influence ongoing jury deliberations in the Los Angeles case. Jurors may be aware of the New Mexico outcome if they viewed news during jury breaks, though judges typically instruct juries to avoid media coverage. If jurors learned of the $375 million verdict, they might view it as confirmation that Meta faces serious liability for conduct harming young users, lending weight to the plaintiff’s arguments. Alternatively, some jurors might dismiss the New Mexico case as legally distinct, focusing only on the evidence presented in their own trial.
What Comes Next—Mistrial, Retrial, or Verdict?
The jury will continue deliberations with encouragement from the judge to reach unanimous agreement if possible. If the jury eventually reports that it is hopelessly deadlocked and cannot reach a verdict on one or both defendants despite further attempts, the judge will declare a mistrial on that defendant. At that point, attorneys will decide whether to retry the case before a new jury.
Retrying a complex social media addiction case is expensive and time-consuming—potentially 3-6 months of additional litigation—so both sides may negotiate a settlement if the deadlock signals uncertainty about the merits. If a mistrial is declared on one defendant and a verdict is reached on the other, the verdict will move forward while a retrial is arranged for the deadlocked defendant. During that retrial process, this verdict will function as persuasive precedent, influencing the second jury’s thinking and potentially accelerating settlement discussions. The timeline for resolution—whether through verdict, mistrial, or settlement—is uncertain, but a decision is expected within the coming weeks as the jury continues its work.