Jury deliberations in the landmark Los Angeles social media addiction trial have reached Day 8 as of March 25, 2026, with the panel struggling to reach consensus on at least one defendant and showing signs of potential deadlock. The trial involves a 20-year-old plaintiff identified as “Kaley G.M.” who sued Meta and YouTube, claiming their platforms’ addictive design drove her to self-harm while she grew up online starting at age six. Meanwhile, a separate New Mexico trial concluded dramatically on March 24-25, 2026, with a jury finding Meta liable on all counts and awarding $375 million in damages—the first state-level victory against a major tech company in litigation over child safety and platform-induced harms. Together, these cases represent a critical inflection point in the battle between consumers and social media companies, with 2,000+ pending lawsuits waiting to see how these trials resolve.
The jury’s progression to the damages phase in Los Angeles signals they’ve already determined liability for at least one defendant, meaning the deliberations now center on how much compensation the plaintiff deserves. This shift from liability to damages represents a substantial win for plaintiffs in social media addiction litigation, even as the jury struggles to unanimously agree on the full scope of accountability. The New Mexico verdict, by contrast, has already resolved questions of liability and damages, establishing not only that Meta harmed children but quantifying that harm at $375 million.
Table of Contents
- What Is Happening With Jury Deliberations in the Los Angeles Bellwether Trial?
- The Significance of the New Mexico $375 Million Verdict
- How Do These Cases Impact the 2,000+ Pending Social Media Addiction Lawsuits?
- What Damages Are Being Sought and Awarded in These Cases?
- Why Are Jury Deliberations Taking So Long and What Does Deadlock Mean?
- The Plaintiff’s Story—How Social Media Addiction Develops and Causes Harm
- What Happens Next—Appeals, Additional Trials, and Industry Timeline
- Frequently Asked Questions
What Is Happening With Jury Deliberations in the Los Angeles Bellwether Trial?
The Los Angeles trial began in early February 2026 with closing arguments, and after weeks of testimony about the plaintiff’s experience, the jury entered deliberations attempting to reach a unanimous verdict on whether Meta and YouTube knowingly designed addictive features and whether those features caused the plaintiff’s documented mental health harm. By March 25, 2026, the jury had been deliberating for eight days, a prolonged period that suggests fundamental disagreement among jurors on at least one defendant—or disagreement on the measure of damages. The panel has advanced to discussing the compensatory damages phase, which is only reached after jurors agree on liability, indicating they’ve achieved at least some consensus on accountability.
Jury deadlock—when jurors cannot reach unanimity despite good-faith efforts—is a real risk in complex trials involving causation questions and subjective harm assessments. However, advancing to damages discussion is a meaningful development. It means jurors have already decided that Meta and/or YouTube engaged in conduct that violated law and caused injury, even if they’re now wrestling with exactly how much compensation is appropriate. A hung jury on one defendant would not invalidate liability findings on another, so even a partial verdict would represent progress for plaintiffs in a field where prior social media litigation had largely ended in settlements or dismissals rather than jury verdicts.
The Significance of the New Mexico $375 Million Verdict
While Los Angeles jurors deliberate, the New Mexico trial concluded with a definitive jury verdict: Meta is liable on all counts, and the company must pay $375 million in civil damages. This verdict, announced March 24-25, 2026, represents the first time a state has prevailed at trial against a major tech company over claims it harmed children through platform design and safety failures. The New Mexico jury determined that Meta engaged in “unconscionable” and “unfair and deceptive” trade practices, violated state law by misleading users about platform safety, and actively enabled child sexual exploitation. This outcome matters because it breaks new legal ground.
Previous litigation against social media companies had resulted in settlements (in which companies pay without admitting wrongdoing) or dismissals, but few jury verdicts establishing liability. The New Mexico verdict establishes, in a court of law, that a jury of ordinary citizens believes Meta’s conduct toward children crossed a clear legal line. The “thousands of separate violations” the jury found suggest pervasive, systematic conduct rather than isolated incidents. However, the New Mexico case focused on child safety and sexual exploitation, whereas the Los Angeles trial focuses on addiction and mental health—a narrower but still significant legal theory that addiction-by-design constitutes a deceptive practice.
How Do These Cases Impact the 2,000+ Pending Social Media Addiction Lawsuits?
The Los Angeles trial is officially a “bellwether” trial—a test case that allows the court system and both sides to assess the strength of claims before thousands of additional lawsuits proceed to trial or settlement. If jurors find Meta and YouTube liable, the verdict signals to other plaintiffs, judges, and defendants that juries are willing to hold social media companies accountable for addiction-related harms. Even a hung jury carries information: it tells future litigants and defendants that some jurors believe the companies bear responsibility, which may shift settlement negotiations. The New Mexico verdict, while separate from the bellwether track, sends an even stronger signal—a jury has already unanimously agreed that Meta violated law in a way that harmed children.
For the 2,000+ pending cases, these verdicts become use in settlement discussions. Defendants facing a $375 million judgment in New Mexico and a bellwether jury advancing to damages calculations in Los Angeles cannot easily argue that they face no real liability exposure. Many of these pending cases will likely settle in coming months as both sides assess the risk and cost of trial versus negotiated resolution. However, not every case is identical—some involve younger plaintiffs, some involve different defendants (YouTube, TikTok, Snapchat), and some involve different theories of harm. A verdict against Meta in one context does not automatically transfer to another defendant or another theory, which is why the range of pending cases remains substantial even as headline verdicts emerge.
What Damages Are Being Sought and Awarded in These Cases?
In Los Angeles, the jury is currently discussing compensatory damages for a 20-year-old plaintiff who has experienced documented mental health decline, self-harm, and ongoing psychological effects traceable to her social media use. Compensatory damages aim to make the plaintiff whole—to reimburse medical costs, lost income, pain and suffering, and other direct harms. The specific amount the Los Angeles jury will award remains unknown as of March 25, 2026, but the fact that deliberations advanced to this phase means the jury has decided Meta and/or YouTube owe some measure of compensation.
The New Mexico verdict established $375 million in compensatory damages, though the case involved multiple plaintiffs and classes of affected children, making it difficult to extract a per-plaintiff figure. In May 2026, a second phase of the New Mexico case begins where a judge (not a jury) will determine whether Meta created a public nuisance and should be forced to fund remedial programs—an additional layer of potential liability beyond the $375 million already awarded. This is a critical distinction: compensatory damages reimburse individuals, but public nuisance findings can require defendants to fund systemic remedies, training programs, or monitoring—costs that could dwarf the direct damages award.
Why Are Jury Deliberations Taking So Long and What Does Deadlock Mean?
Eight days of deliberation on a case involving mental health causation, addiction definitions, and corporate liability is not unusually extended, but it does suggest disagreement. Jurors may agree on liability but disagree on damages—some may believe the plaintiff deserves $10 million while others argue for $50 million. Alternatively, jurors may disagree on liability itself for one defendant while achieving consensus on the other. The “signs of potential deadlock” reported as of March 25, 2026 suggest the judge has begun receiving signals from the jury room that unanimity may not be achievable.
If the jury declares a mistrial due to deadlock, neither side wins a complete victory, and the case may be retried, settled, or appealed depending on applicable law. However, a hung jury on one defendant does not erase potential liability findings on others, so even an incomplete verdict carries meaning. It’s also possible that continued deliberation over the coming days will break the deadlock—juries sometimes need time to reach compromise or for minority voices to persuade colleagues, or vice versa. The jury’s advancement to damages discussion suggests they have overcome at least one threshold of disagreement, so the deadlock may resolve.
The Plaintiff’s Story—How Social Media Addiction Develops and Causes Harm
The Los Angeles plaintiff, identified as Kaley G.M., is a 20-year-old from Chico, California. She began using YouTube at age six—an age at which most children cannot read or understand digital consent—and posted her first video at age eight. By age nine, she had downloaded Instagram. Her lawsuit alleges that as she grew up, these platforms’ algorithmic feeds, infinite scroll, and notification systems kept her engaged for hours each day in ways that harmed her developing brain.
Critically, the testimony in the Los Angeles trial has documented that she began cutting herself to cope with depression she linked to social media use—a severe, documented form of self-harm. This pattern mirrors broader public health research on adolescent social media use, though the Los Angeles trial represents one of the first instances where a jury has heard direct testimony from a plaintiff whose self-harm is traceable to platform use. The stakes are high because if juries accept the causation argument—that platform design directly caused or substantially contributed to self-harm—then social media companies face potential liability for any similar harms, which public health researchers suggest affects millions of young people. However, proving causation in individual cases remains difficult; proving that platform design, rather than genetics, family circumstances, bullying, or other factors, caused harm requires expert testimony and careful factual analysis.
What Happens Next—Appeals, Additional Trials, and Industry Timeline
Meta has already indicated it “respectfully disagrees with the verdict and will appeal” the New Mexico decision, meaning that $375 million judgment will likely face appellate scrutiny. Appeals in these cases take months to years, and appellate courts may overturn, reduce, or affirm damages awards. The Los Angeles bellwether verdict, once rendered, will also likely face appeal if the losing defendant disagrees with the outcome. For plaintiffs and consumers watching these cases, appeal timelines mean that even a $375 million judgment does not represent immediate compensation; it represents a legal finding that must survive the appellate process.
The May 4, 2026 second phase of the New Mexico trial—where a judge will determine public nuisance liability and potential remedial funding—will provide additional legal developments. If the judge finds that Meta created a public nuisance, it may require the company to fund education campaigns, mental health resources, or monitoring mechanisms, expanding the company’s total liability beyond direct damages. The 2,000+ pending cases will continue to develop during this period, with some settling, some moving toward trial, and some being dismissed on jurisdictional or legal grounds. By late 2026 or early 2027, the landscape of social media litigation will likely be substantially different, with clearer precedent on what juries and judges believe constitutes actionable harm.
Frequently Asked Questions
If the Los Angeles jury deadlocks, does that mean Meta and YouTube win?
Not necessarily. A hung jury on one defendant does not erase potential liability findings on another. Additionally, if a jury deadlocks after advancing to damages discussions, it indicates at least some jurors believed liability was established—information that strengthens plaintiffs’ positions in settlement negotiations or subsequent trials.
How much of the New Mexico $375 million verdict will consumers actually receive?
That depends on the number of affected class members, any attorney fees and costs, and how appeals proceed. The $375 million represents the total award, but it will be distributed among all plaintiffs in the case. Individual recoveries may range from hundreds to thousands of dollars depending on the class size and payment distribution plan.
Can I sue Meta or YouTube for social media addiction right now?
Thousands of pending lawsuits already exist. You may be eligible to join a class action lawsuit in your state, though eligibility varies by jurisdiction and by the specific claims being pursued. Check the official website of your state’s attorney general or legal aid organizations for information on pending cases you may join.
What does “bellwether trial” mean and why does it matter?
A bellwether trial is a test case that helps both sides and the court system understand how juries will respond to claims before thousands of additional cases proceed to trial. The Los Angeles trial is the first major bellwether trial on social media addiction, and its outcome will influence settlement negotiations and jury expectations in the 2,000+ pending cases.
When will I get compensation if I’m part of a lawsuit?
Litigation timelines vary significantly. Even if a jury reaches a verdict, appeals typically follow, which can take 1-3 years. Some cases settle faster, while others may not resolve for 2-5 years or more. Class settlements may distribute compensation within 6-12 months of approval, but jury verdicts under appeal face longer timelines.
Does the New Mexico verdict apply to other states?
The New Mexico verdict establishes precedent in New Mexico and influences other courts, but it does not automatically apply to other states. However, other juries and judges may find the reasoning persuasive, and the $375 million award sends a strong signal about liability exposure, which affects settlement negotiations nationwide.
You Might Also Like
- Social Media Addiction Cases are Ramping Up in March 2026
- Social Media Addiction Cases are Ramping Up for April 2026
- Social Media Addiction Cases are Ramping Up for 2026 and 2027