The landmark social media addiction trial in Los Angeles remains pending as of March 25, 2026, with a jury now in its eighth day of deliberations and no verdict reached. K.G.M., a 20-year-old plaintiff from Chico, California, has brought the case against Meta and YouTube in Los Angeles Superior Court under Judge Carolyn B.
Kuhl, alleging that these platforms deliberately designed addictive features that caused her compulsive use, anxiety, depression, body dysmorphia, and suicidal ideation. The jury began deliberations on March 13, 2026, after hearing testimony from both sides, including major testimony from Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg in mid-February—his first-ever testimony in a jury trial.
Table of Contents
- What Is the Current Status of the Social Media Addiction Trial?
- Who Is the Plaintiff and What Are Her Claims?
- What Testimony and Evidence Were Presented?
- Why Does This Trial Matter Beyond This One Case?
- What Happens If the Jury Deadlocks?
- What Was the Recent Meta Verdict in New Mexico?
- What Comes Next in This Trial and Similar Cases?
What Is the Current Status of the Social Media Addiction Trial?
As of March 24-25, 2026, the jury has been deliberating for eight days without reaching a verdict. On March 23, jurors reported “difficulty coming to a consensus” on at least one defendant, signaling that consensus may not be within immediate reach. The jury of 12 has already advanced beyond the liability phase and is now considering financial damages, meaning they have found at least one defendant liable but are disagreeing on either liability for one company or the amount of damages owed.
The judge, Carolyn B. Kuhl, has made clear that if the jury becomes deadlocked, the case will be “at least partially retried”—meaning a new jury will need to hear the evidence again. This is a critical distinction from many trials: even if the jury cannot unanimously agree, the case will not simply be dismissed. Instead, at least part of the litigation will continue with a fresh jury panel.
Who Is the Plaintiff and What Are Her Claims?
K.G.M. started her social media use at an exceptionally young age: YouTube at age 6 and Instagram at age 9. By her teenage years, her usage became extreme—she claims to have spent up to 16 hours in a single day on Instagram, indicating deeply compulsive behavior. Her lawyers argued that these platforms used psychological manipulation, algorithmic engagement tactics, and addictive design features to keep her using the services despite recognizing harm to her own mental health.
The plaintiff’s claims go beyond screen time. She alleges that the platforms’ design caused her to experience anxiety, depression, body dysmorphia (distorted perception of her appearance), and suicidal ideation. These are serious mental health injuries, not mere complaints about being distracted. However, the defendants’ legal teams challenged whether social media alone caused these conditions or whether other factors contributed, a key point of contention during the trial that likely influenced the jury’s difficulty reaching consensus.
What Testimony and Evidence Were Presented?
Mark Zuckerberg testified on February 18, 2026—a historically significant moment, as this was his first-ever testimony in a jury trial. His testimony came after the trial’s substantive proceedings began on February 10, 2026, and jury selection began on January 27. Zuckerberg’s appearance on the stand was considered a major development given his prominence as Meta’s CEO and his typically limited exposure to jury trials.
Beyond Zuckerberg’s testimony, the defendants presented 10 witnesses before resting their case on March 11, 2026. These witnesses likely included experts on social media design, mental health professionals disputing causation, and other evidence aimed at defending Meta and YouTube. The plaintiff’s side presented their own witnesses, including experts from Stanford University who testified that studies confirm social media addiction is real and can harm mental health. Expert testimony about the physiological and psychological nature of social media addiction was central to establishing that the platform companies knowingly created addictive products.
Why Does This Trial Matter Beyond This One Case?
This trial is the first bellwether case out of approximately 1,600 to 4,000 similar lawsuits pending against Meta, Google, Snap, and TikTok. A verdict in this case—whether it favors the plaintiff or the defendants—will set a legal precedent that influences how hundreds of other cases proceed. If K.G.M. wins and receives significant damages, other plaintiffs’ attorneys will cite this verdict when negotiating settlements or presenting their own cases.
If the defendants win, it may discourage new litigation or shift plaintiffs’ legal strategies. The broader implications extend to how tech companies are regulated and held accountable for product design. A finding that social media platforms deliberately designed addictive features could expose Meta and Google to substantial liability—similar to how tobacco companies were held accountable decades ago. The comparison to tobacco litigation was explicitly made by commentators covering the trial, suggesting that if plaintiffs prevail, it could reshape the tech industry’s approach to engagement metrics and algorithmic recommendation systems.
What Happens If the Jury Deadlocks?
If the jury cannot reach a unanimous verdict—which seems increasingly possible given the reported difficulty coming to consensus—Judge Kuhl has already signaled that at least part of the case will be retried. This is not an outcome where the case simply ends. Instead, a mistrial will be declared on at least some issues, and either the same jury will continue deliberating on certain questions while being dismissed on others, or a new jury will hear the entire case or specific phases of it again. The retrial scenario is time-consuming and costly for all parties involved.
For the plaintiff, it means months or years of additional litigation before a final verdict. For the defendants, a hung jury on some issues offers both risk and opportunity—the retried phase could result in a worse outcome. The court system is burdened with retrials that consume significant judicial resources and expert witness time. This is why judges often encourage juries to continue deliberating longer before declaring a deadlock, even when consensus seems distant.
What Was the Recent Meta Verdict in New Mexico?
While the Los Angeles jury deliberates, a related case in New Mexico resulted in a significant verdict against Meta in early 2026. A jury ordered Meta to pay $375 million to the state of New Mexico for enabling child sexual exploitation on Facebook, Instagram, and WhatsApp. Although this verdict addresses a different harm (helping exploitation rather than addiction), it demonstrates that juries are willing to hold Meta accountable for harms related to platform design and child safety.
The New Mexico verdict signals that the legal landscape for Meta is shifting. It shows that multiple juries in different jurisdictions are finding evidence that Meta’s platforms create conditions for harm and that the company bears responsibility. This verdict, though not directly binding on the Los Angeles jury, adds context to the broader social media litigation wave and may influence how other jurors view Meta’s liability in future cases.
What Comes Next in This Trial and Similar Cases?
The Los Angeles jury will continue deliberating in the coming days and weeks. If they reach a verdict, that ruling will be announced in court and become public record, instantly affecting the legal landscape for all pending social media addiction cases. If they deadlock partially or fully, a retrial date will be set, and the litigation cycle begins anew. Court observers and legal analysts will scrutinize the verdict and the reasoning behind it to understand what factors persuaded or failed to persuade the jury.
Looking ahead, the outcome of this trial will determine the trajectory of social media litigation against major platforms for years to come. If plaintiffs succeed, expect a wave of settlements and jury trials. If defendants prevail, the litigation may stall or plaintiffs may need to develop stronger evidence or different legal theories. Either way, this case has already shifted the conversation about social media’s role in mental health and addiction, and the ongoing deliberations represent a critical moment in tech accountability law.