As of late March 2026, the jury in this landmark social media addiction lawsuit has been deliberating for over eight days with no verdict in sight. Judge Carolyn B. Kuhl has warned jurors that if they cannot reach unanimous agreement, the case will result in a mistrial and require a complete retrial with a new jury—a development that would extend litigation for months or years and create significant uncertainty for all parties involved.
The lawsuit centers on a plaintiff now 20 years old, identified as KGM, who has alleged that YouTube and Instagram (owned by Meta) became addictive platforms that harmed their health and development after exposure began at just six years old. The jury has already moved past the liability phase and is now deliberating financial damages—a sign that jurors believe the platforms bear responsibility, but significant disagreement remains on how much compensation is appropriate.
Table of Contents
- How Long Can a Jury Deliberate Before a Mistrial Is Declared?
- What Evidence Is the Jury Weighing About Social Media Addiction?
- Which Social Media Platforms Are Defendants in This Case, and Have Any Settled?
- The Jury Has Moved to the Damages Phase—What Does That Mean?
- What Happens If the Jury Cannot Reach Unanimity and a Mistrial Is Declared?
- How Does This Case Compare to Other Social Media Litigation Against Meta?
- What Happens Next if a Verdict Is Reached or if a Mistrial Occurs?
How Long Can a Jury Deliberate Before a Mistrial Is Declared?
jury deliberations lasting eight or more days in a complex civil case are not unusual, but they do signal that jurors are working through difficult questions or struggling to find common ground. In this case, the extended deliberation timeline has prompted the judge to intervene with warnings about the mistrial possibility. Judge Kuhl’s statement carries real weight: if jurors cannot unanimously agree on liability or damages, the entire trial collapses, and both plaintiffs and defendants must prepare for a new jury to hear the case from scratch.
This creates pressure on jurors to either reach agreement or signal that consensus is impossible. However, judges typically give juries significant time to deliberate rather than forcing a mistrial immediately. The balance between persistence and accepting a deadlock is delicate—push too hard and jurors feel coerced; give up too soon and complex cases never reach resolution. For KGM’s case specifically, the judge’s warning suggests deliberations have reached a critical stage where continued disagreement may soon trigger a mistrial declaration.
What Evidence Is the Jury Weighing About Social Media Addiction?
Throughout the trial, the jury heard evidence about how YouTube’s and Instagram’s algorithms are designed to maximize user engagement and time spent on the platforms, with particular concern about their effects on developing brains. Experts likely testified about the addictive properties of social media, the role of notification systems, infinite scroll features, and algorithmic recommendation engines that keep users returning. The plaintiff’s case rested on showing that Meta and Google knowingly deployed these features despite understanding their addictive potential and the harms they could cause to young users.
However, the defendants have argued that parental monitoring, user choice, and the platforms’ own built-in safety features provide adequate protection. They may have emphasized that KGM had agency in using the platforms and that blaming the platforms alone ignores family responsibility and individual decision-making. The jury’s extended deliberation suggests they are grappling with questions of causation—did the platforms’ design directly cause the alleged harms, or were other factors at play? This is a critical distinction because holding platforms liable requires proving they were the primary cause, not just a contributing factor.
Which Social Media Platforms Are Defendants in This Case, and Have Any Settled?
Meta (Instagram’s parent company) and Google (youtube‘s owner) remain as defendants in the trial, still fighting the case and waiting for a verdict. However, TikTok and Snapchat—two other major social media platforms frequently cited in discussions of teen addiction—settled before trial even began. Their settlements, though terms were not widely publicized, represent an acknowledgment of potential liability and a desire to avoid the public scrutiny and risk of a jury trial. For consumers tracking social media accountability, these early settlements suggest that platforms recognize legal exposure in addiction-related claims.
The fact that only Meta and Google are in trial now means the jury’s verdict, if it comes, will address these two companies specifically. This matters because YouTube and Instagram represent different user demographics and engagement models. Instagram has long been associated with social comparison and self-esteem harms, while YouTube’s algorithm has been criticized for recommending extreme or exploitative content to young viewers. The jury must weigh evidence specific to each platform’s practices and whether KGM’s harms are traceable to their particular design choices.
The Jury Has Moved to the Damages Phase—What Does That Mean?
As of Friday, March 21, 2026, the jury advanced beyond the liability phase and began deliberating financial damages. This is a crucial milestone because it signals that at least some jurors—or possibly all of them—believe Meta and/or Google are legally responsible for KGM’s harms.
In other words, the jury did not deadlock on the question of “did the platforms cause harm?” They moved past that hurdle and are now asking “how much money should the plaintiff receive?” Damages in a case like this can include compensation for medical treatment, therapy, lost educational opportunity, emotional distress, and sometimes punitive damages designed to punish defendants for egregious conduct. The jury’s continued deliberation at this stage suggests disagreement on the dollar amount—some jurors may want a modest award, while others push for a much larger sum. This type of deadlock is more common in the damages phase than in the liability phase because reasonable people can disagree sharply on how to quantify harm to a single person.
What Happens If the Jury Cannot Reach Unanimity and a Mistrial Is Declared?
If the jury tells the judge they are hopelessly deadlocked—unable to reach agreement despite continued deliberation—the judge will declare a mistrial. This does not mean KGM loses; it means the case will be tried again with a fresh jury. Both sides would reset, present their evidence again, and go through the entire process a second time. For the plaintiff, this is frustrating and costly, but it preserves their right to a jury trial. For the defendants, a mistrial might be strategically preferable to a large judgment, even though they must prepare and litigate the case again.
A critical limitation of the mistrial path is the timeline and expense involved. Retrying the case could take another year or more, during which KGM receives no compensation and legal costs mount for both sides. Additionally, there is no guarantee a second jury will rule the same way—they might award more, less, or nothing at all. Judge Kuhl’s warning signals that she is aware of this, and jurors are being reminded that a mistrial serves no one’s interests well. This pressure, while fair under the law, can sometimes push juries toward compromise verdicts rather than their genuine beliefs about the evidence.
How Does This Case Compare to Other Social Media Litigation Against Meta?
The social media addiction lawsuit against Meta and Google is not isolated. In March 2026, a separate case in New Mexico resulted in a $375 million judgment against Meta for failing to safeguard children from online predators. That verdict demonstrates that juries are willing to hold Meta accountable for harms to minors, setting a precedent that may influence how the jury in KGM’s case thinks about platform responsibility.
However, the New Mexico case focused on predator protection, not addiction—a different harm with different legal standards. Addiction claims are newer and more complex than predator-related harms because they require the jury to accept that a legal product (social media) can be “addictive” in a way that makes the platform liable for a user’s choices. The New Mexico verdict suggests juries see Meta as responsible for certain harms to children, but the addiction case in California pushes further—asking whether platforms can be held liable for designing their services to be intentionally habit-forming. If KGM’s jury awards significant damages on the addiction theory, it could open the door to many more similar lawsuits.
What Happens Next if a Verdict Is Reached or if a Mistrial Occurs?
If the jury reaches a verdict for KGM, Meta and Google will likely appeal, extending the case through the appellate process. If they appeal successfully, parts or all of the verdict could be overturned, or the case could face another trial. Conversely, if the verdict is for the defendants, KGM’s legal team would likely appeal. This appellate phase could take years and may set important precedent about whether social media platforms can be held liable for addiction-like harms.
If a mistrial is declared, both sides must prepare for a new trial in 2026 or 2027. The legal landscape may shift during this time—other cases may be decided, regulations may change, and public attitudes toward platform accountability may evolve. For consumers waiting to see whether social media platforms face real consequences for addictive design, this case remains a pivotal moment. A successful verdict for KGM could pave the way for thousands of similar claims, while a defense victory or mistrial would signal that platforms have significant legal protection despite their design practices.