The Los Angeles jury in the high-profile Meta child safety trial has not yet reached a verdict as of March 25, 2026, despite over four days of deliberations. The jury, tasked with deciding liability for Meta and YouTube in connection with alleged harms to young people’s mental health and safety, signaled difficulty reaching consensus on at least one defendant, prompting the judge to order continued deliberations. However, this delay comes just one day after a historic win for state prosecutors: on March 24, 2026, a New Mexico jury delivered a landmark verdict finding Meta liable on all counts and awarding $375 million in damages for knowingly harming children and failing to protect them from sexual predators.
Table of Contents
- Where Does the Los Angeles Meta Trial Stand Right Now?
- New Mexico’s Historic $375 Million Verdict: What the Jury Found Against Meta
- Why the Los Angeles Jury Appears Deadlocked and What a Mistrial Would Mean
- What Meta’s Liability Findings Mean for Child Safety and User Trust
- The Risk of Jury Deadlock and What Happens If the Los Angeles Jury Cannot Agree
- New Mexico’s Phase 2: The Public Nuisance Question and Additional Damages
- What These Trials Mean for Future Tech Company Litigation and Regulatory Pressure
- Frequently Asked Questions
Where Does the Los Angeles Meta Trial Stand Right Now?
The Los Angeles jury has been deliberating since Friday, March 21, 2026, in a case that consumed nearly seven weeks of testimony. Judge Carolyn B. Kuhl of Los Angeles Superior Court initially expected a verdict but encountered a problem: the jury reported difficulty reaching consensus on at least one defendant. Rather than declare a mistrial immediately, the judge instructed jurors to continue deliberating, a practice known as an “Allen charge,” which asks jurors to reconsider their positions with the goal of reaching unanimity.
As of now, no verdict has been announced, and the jury remains sequestered and deliberating. The case involves two major defendants—Meta (Facebook and Instagram) and YouTube—both accused of addicting young people to their platforms in ways that harmed mental health and exploited minors. The extended deliberation period is significant because it suggests the jury is grappling with genuinely contested issues rather than simply deciding clear-cut questions of fact. When jurors struggle this visibly, it often means the evidence presented reasonable arguments on both sides, or that jurors have different interpretations of liability. Some jurors may believe the evidence proves Meta and YouTube deliberately concealed dangers, while others may believe the companies’ actions, while harmful, don’t rise to the level of the legal standards required for the claims brought.
New Mexico’s Historic $375 Million Verdict: What the Jury Found Against Meta
On March 24, 2026, a jury in New Mexico handed down a historic verdict: $375 million in damages against meta for violations of state consumer protection and product liability laws. This verdict is remarkable because New Mexico became the first state to prevail at trial against a major tech company for harming young people. The jury found Meta liable on all counts, including willful violation of unfair and deceptive trade practices and unconscionable conduct. More specifically, the jury determined that Meta violated New Mexico law by failing to warn users about documented dangers and by failing to protect children from sexual predators who exploit the platform to identify and groom victims.
The New Mexico verdict is also significant for what the jury concluded about Meta’s knowledge. The jury found that Meta knowingly concealed information about child sexual exploitation occurring on its platforms and deliberately failed to disclose the mental health risks its algorithms posed to young users. This wasn’t a finding of mere negligence or accident—it was a finding of deliberate, knowing harm. The company’s internal awareness of these dangers, combined with its failure to act, formed the legal basis for the “unconscionable conduct” finding. For consumers affected by these practices, this verdict validates claims that Meta prioritized engagement and profit over user safety, particularly for minors.
Why the Los Angeles Jury Appears Deadlocked and What a Mistrial Would Mean
The Los Angeles jury’s reported difficulty reaching a verdict raises the possibility of a hung jury or deadlock. If the jury cannot unanimously agree on liability for either Meta or YouTube, the judge has only two options: declare a mistrial on that defendant, or—as she did—order jurors back to deliberations in hopes they’ll reach consensus. If a mistrial is declared on one or both defendants, that portion of the case must be retried, meaning new jury selection, new testimony, and a new trial that could take months or years to resolve.
This is a significant risk for both the plaintiffs, who must start over, and the defendants, who face the uncertainty of another trial. The complexity of the evidence presented likely contributes to the deadlock. Over seven weeks, the jury heard expert testimony about how social media algorithms work, testimony about the mental health impacts on adolescents, internal Meta documents that may show company awareness of harms, and competing expert opinions about causation—whether Meta’s platforms directly caused specific injuries to specific children. Jurors must reconcile conflicting expert opinions, assess the credibility of witnesses, and apply detailed legal standards about when a company’s conduct becomes “deceptive” or “defective.” However, if the jury deadlocks, the judge’s instruction to continue deliberating has a specific purpose: sometimes, when jurors revisit their positions, they find common ground or realize that their fellow jurors have raised points they hadn’t fully considered.
What Meta’s Liability Findings Mean for Child Safety and User Trust
The New Mexico verdict’s findings of liability have direct implications for how Meta operates. A jury conclusion that Meta “knowingly” failed to protect children and concealed dangers creates legal precedent that strengthens similar claims in other jurisdictions. If other states’ juries read about New Mexico’s verdict—that Meta was found liable for these specific harms—they may view similar evidence more critically when it’s presented in their own trials. This can create momentum for plaintiffs in pending cases and increase Meta’s exposure across multiple legal fronts. For users and parents, these verdicts signal that courts are willing to hold tech companies accountable for documented harms to minors.
The New Mexico jury didn’t accept Meta’s arguments that the harms were unavoidable or that the company had done enough. Instead, it found that Meta had a duty to do more—to warn users, to implement stronger protections, to disclose risks. However, a critical caveat: even if the Los Angeles jury reaches a similar verdict, that alone won’t automatically result in immediate changes to Meta’s platforms. Verdicts and settlements can lead to court orders or agreed-upon changes, but implementation takes time, and Meta often appeals large verdicts. The New Mexico case includes a Phase 2 proceeding scheduled for May 2026, in which a judge (not the jury) will consider whether Meta’s platforms created a “public nuisance” and what additional damages should be awarded. This phase could result in even larger financial liability.
The Risk of Jury Deadlock and What Happens If the Los Angeles Jury Cannot Agree
A hung jury in the Los Angeles trial would be a significant outcome, even though it’s not a final decision. A deadlock means the jury cannot reach unanimous agreement on liability, which in most civil cases requires all jurors to agree on the verdict. A mistrial declaration doesn’t mean Meta or YouTube “won”—it means the case must be retried. For plaintiffs, retrials are expensive, time-consuming, and uncertain; there’s no guarantee the second jury will reach the same conclusion as the first. For Meta and YouTube, a mistrial is also costly and creates prolonged uncertainty, though it does eliminate this particular jury’s verdict against them.
The judge’s decision to push the jury to continue deliberating reflects a judicial preference to avoid retrials when possible. Many judges believe that additional deliberation time can help jurors reach consensus by encouraging them to listen to each other’s perspectives and reconsider their positions. However, if jurors remain fundamentally divided on key factual or legal questions, no amount of additional time will change their minds. A second or third round of deliberations can sometimes lead to compromise verdicts—for example, finding liability on some counts but not others, or agreeing on a lower damages award than initially proposed. The jury’s current position remains unknown; the public record only indicates that they signaled difficulty, not the nature of their disagreement.
New Mexico’s Phase 2: The Public Nuisance Question and Additional Damages
The New Mexico case doesn’t end with the $375 million verdict. Phase 2, scheduled for May 2026, will address whether Meta’s platforms constitute a “public nuisance” under New Mexico law—a legal question distinct from the individual consumer harm claims decided by the jury. Public nuisance claims ask whether a defendant’s conduct creates widespread harm to the public or a class of people, affecting their health, safety, or ability to use public resources.
If the judge finds a public nuisance, the damages could be substantial, as they would reflect harm to the public as a whole, not just compensatory damages to individual victims. In this Phase 2 proceeding, the judge will also determine what damages are appropriate for the public nuisance finding, if any. This is a pivotal moment because public nuisance verdicts in mass-harm cases can result in court-ordered remedies beyond money—such as mandated changes to product design, ongoing monitoring, or injunctive relief requiring the company to alter its practices. For Meta, this phase represents both a risk and an opportunity; the company can present arguments about why its platforms don’t constitute a public nuisance despite the jury’s finding of liability for deceptive practices, or it can negotiate a settlement that avoids additional Phase 2 proceedings altogether.
What These Trials Mean for Future Tech Company Litigation and Regulatory Pressure
The New Mexico verdict and the Los Angeles jury deliberations represent a watershed moment in litigation against major tech companies. For years, social media and technology companies have argued that their platforms, while sometimes harmful, cannot be held liable for user-generated content or for the psychological effects of platform design because of statutory protections and the complexity of causation. The New Mexico jury’s verdict undermines that defense by finding that Meta can, in fact, be held liable for knowing failure to protect users and for deceptive practices related to safety. This precedent will likely encourage additional lawsuits against Meta and other platforms.
Looking ahead, the outcome of the Los Angeles trial—whenever it is resolved—will either reinforce the New Mexico verdict or create conflicting results that may confuse future litigation. Additionally, both trials are occurring against a backdrop of increased regulatory scrutiny of social media. Governments at federal, state, and international levels are considering stronger regulation of algorithmic recommendation systems, data collection practices, and disclosure requirements. The jury verdicts provide factual findings that legislators and regulators can cite when arguing for stricter rules. For Meta, the financial, legal, and reputational stakes are high; these trials are not isolated legal proceedings but rather part of a broader reckoning with the company’s practices and its responsibility to protect minors using its platforms.
Frequently Asked Questions
What does the New Mexico verdict mean for people harmed by Meta?
The verdict establishes that a jury has found Meta liable for knowingly failing to protect users from predators and concealing mental health risks. This validates similar claims and may support compensation claims in other cases and settlements.
Could the Los Angeles jury deadlock, and what would happen?
Yes, if the jury cannot reach unanimous agreement, the judge may declare a mistrial, requiring the case to be retried. A mistrial is not a victory for Meta; it simply means the case is unresolved and must start over.
How much money did Meta have to pay in New Mexico?
The jury awarded $375 million. Additionally, Phase 2 proceedings in May 2026 may result in additional damages if a judge finds that Meta’s platforms constitute a public nuisance.
What is the difference between the New Mexico and Los Angeles trials?
Both involve similar claims about Meta harming minors, but they are separate cases in different states with different juries. The New Mexico case has already concluded with a verdict; the Los Angeles case is still pending jury deliberation.
Can I join a class action lawsuit related to these Meta trials?
Possibly. Class action cases and settlements related to social media harms may be available, depending on your circumstances and location. Contact an attorney or your state’s attorney general for information about pending or available claims.
What happens in New Mexico’s Phase 2 proceedings?
A judge will determine whether Meta’s platforms created a public nuisance and, if so, what additional damages or remedies should be imposed. This phase could result in court-ordered changes to Meta’s practices or additional financial liability.