The jury in the landmark Los Angeles social media addiction trial has reached a verdict as of March 26, 2026, ending months of deliberation in the case of K.G.M. v. Meta and YouTube.
Meanwhile, a separate trial in New Mexico concluded on March 24, 2026, with a jury finding Meta liable for $375 million in civil penalties for violating consumer protection laws. These represent the first social media addiction trials to reach completion and verdict, marking a historic shift in how courts are holding tech companies accountable for addictive platform design. The verdicts come after pre-trial settlements by TikTok and Snap, and amid lawsuits filed by more than 40 state attorneys general alleging similar harms.
Table of Contents
- What Happened in the Los Angeles Social Media Addiction Trial?
- The Engineered Addiction Allegations Against Meta and YouTube
- The New Mexico Verdict and What It Reveals About Company Knowledge
- The Broader Impact of These First Completed Social Media Addiction Trials
- What Happens Next: Appeals and the Retrial Risk
- Pre-Trial Settlements and Why TikTok and Snap Chose a Different Path
- What These Trials Mean for the Future of Social Media Regulation
What Happened in the Los Angeles Social Media Addiction Trial?
The Los Angeles trial centered on K.G.M., a 20-year-old woman from Chico, California, who alleged that meta and YouTube intentionally deployed “engineered addiction” features to addict her as a minor. The jury deliberated for approximately 44 hours over 9 days (March 13-26, 2026), signaling the complexity and contentiousness of the case. Judge Carolyn B. Kuhl oversaw the trial and warned that failure to reach unanimous consensus on all defendants would result in a partial mistrial, requiring a new trial for any defendant on whom the jury remained deadlocked.
Jurors reported difficulty reaching consensus on at least one defendant, indicating that the jury may have been split on whether one of the companies should be held liable. The verdict status as of March 26 resolved this deadlock, though the specific findings for each defendant (Meta vs. YouTube) remain to be publicly detailed. This jury difficulty underscores just how challenging it is to prove intentional addiction design in court, even when jurors are sympathetic to the plaintiff’s suffering.
The Engineered Addiction Allegations Against Meta and YouTube
K.G.M.’s complaint alleged that Meta and youtube deliberately designed features to trigger dopamine-driven responses and keep users compulsively scrolling. Specific tactics included infinite scroll functionality, algorithmic recommendation feeds that prioritize engagement over user wellbeing, notification systems designed to create habitual checking, and algorithmic amplification of emotionally triggering content. The plaintiff argued these features were not accidental byproducts of platform design but rather intentional mechanisms to maximize time-on-platform and advertising revenue. However, proving intent to addict is extraordinarily difficult in court.
Tech companies typically argue that engagement features serve legitimate purposes—helping users discover content they want to see, maintaining connection with friends, and providing free entertainment. The distinction between “engaging” and “addictive” is not always clear in law or science. The jury had to weigh evidence about what Meta and YouTube knew about addiction risks, when they knew it, and whether they deliberately chose harmful design over safer alternatives despite that knowledge. This is why the jury’s reported difficulty reaching consensus makes sense; reasonable jurors could disagree about whether engagement optimization crosses into intentional addiction.
The New Mexico Verdict and What It Reveals About Company Knowledge
On March 24, 2026—two days before the LA verdict—a New Mexico jury reached a guilty verdict against Meta, ordering the company to pay $375 million in civil penalties. The jury found that Meta committed thousands of violations under New Mexico’s Unfair Practices Act by knowingly violating consumer protection laws. Critically, the jury determined that Meta had hidden knowledge of child sexual exploitation occurring on its platforms and the mental health harms caused to young users.
This verdict is significant because it establishes that Meta had actual knowledge of harms and chose not to address them adequately. Meta has stated it disagrees with the verdict and plans to appeal, so this $375 million penalty is not final. However, the jury’s findings about Meta’s knowledge of harms could influence future trials and settlements. If jurors in other cases hear that Meta was found to have hidden knowledge of exploitation and mental health damage, that evidence may make it easier to establish intent or recklessness in those cases.
The Broader Impact of These First Completed Social Media Addiction Trials
These verdicts arrive at a pivotal moment in litigation against social media companies. Prior to these trials reaching conclusion, TikTok and Snap both settled with plaintiffs pre-trial, avoiding the courtroom entirely. Meta, however, chose to litigate both the Los Angeles and New Mexico cases, making them the first addiction-focused trials to reach a jury verdict. This choice to fight in court reveals Meta’s willingness to defend its design practices rather than settle quietly—a risky strategy if verdicts go against the company.
The timing also matters. With more than 40 state attorneys general now pursuing lawsuits against Meta over addictive design, these trial verdicts could serve as proof of concept for other jurisdictions. If the LA jury sided with K.G.M., attorneys general in other states will cite that verdict in their own cases and settlement negotiations. Conversely, if the jury sided with Meta on certain claims, the company will use that exoneration in its defense. Either way, these are watershed moments for the emerging field of social media addiction law.
What Happens Next: Appeals and the Retrial Risk
If the LA jury was unable to reach unanimous consensus on both defendants, Judge Kuhl’s warning about a partial retrial becomes relevant. A hung jury on one defendant would mean starting over with a new trial focused solely on that company. This is costly for all parties—the plaintiff, the defendant, and the court system. However, it also means a second bite at the apple for whichever defendant faces a mistrial, potentially giving them a better outcome in a retrial.
Meta has already indicated it will appeal the New Mexico verdict, claiming the jury’s findings are unsupported by evidence. Appeals in civil cases typically focus on whether the trial judge made legal errors or whether the verdict is so against the weight of evidence that no reasonable jury could have reached it. These appeals can take years to resolve, meaning the $375 million penalty will likely be held in escrow pending appeal. For consumers watching these trials, the appeals process means resolution is not immediate—these cases will continue to generate news and legal developments well into 2027 and beyond.
Pre-Trial Settlements and Why TikTok and Snap Chose a Different Path
Before the LA and New Mexico trials went to verdict, both TikTok and Snap chose to settle their social media addiction cases pre-trial rather than risk a jury decision. This is telling. Companies typically settle when they believe the risk of trial loss outweighs the settlement cost.
By settling, TikTok and Snap avoided public jury verdicts establishing liability, avoided appeals, and gained certainty in their damages. Meta, by contrast, fought in court—a strategy that will either vindicate the company’s design practices or create high-profile verdicts against it. The settlements with TikTok and Snap have not been widely publicized in terms of dollar amounts, but the fact that these companies chose to pay something rather than defend in court suggests their legal counsel assessed the addiction allegations as credible and the trial risk as substantial. This contrasts sharply with Meta’s aggressive litigation posture.
What These Trials Mean for the Future of Social Media Regulation
These verdicts and the broader wave of 40+ state attorney general lawsuits signal that social media addiction litigation is here to stay. Unlike past product liability cases—cigarettes, opioids, asbestos—where companies eventually settled en masse, the social media addiction space is still in early innings. These trials establish legal precedent that addiction-by-design can be actionable under consumer protection law, unfair practices statutes, and potentially tort law. Looking ahead, expect more trials, more settlements, and possibly federal regulation.
Congress has shown interest in platform design accountability through bipartisan bills aimed at protecting minors. If these LA and New Mexico verdicts establish strong legal precedent for addiction claims, that creates political momentum for legislative action. Conversely, if Meta wins on appeal or if the LA retrial produces a defense verdict, the narrative shifts. Either way, these trials are foundational moments for an emerging area of accountability in tech.