As of March 24, 2026, Meta faces two very different jury outcomes in landmark lawsuits over child harm and addictive social media practices. In Los Angeles, a jury remains deadlocked and continues deliberating—the judge ordered them back to work after they reported difficulty reaching a verdict on one of the defendants.
Meanwhile, in New Mexico, a separate jury has already delivered a guilty verdict, finding Meta liable on all counts and ordering the company to pay $375 million in damages for knowingly harming children’s mental health and concealing knowledge of child sexual exploitation. The split verdicts illustrate the unpredictable nature of these high-stakes cases and suggest that juries are taking seriously the claims that Meta’s business model prioritizes engagement over user safety.
Table of Contents
- What’s Happening With the Los Angeles Jury Right Now?
- The New Mexico Verdict: Meta Liable on All Counts
- Two Different Trials, Two Different Legal Theories, One Company Problem
- Timeline of What Happens Next in New Mexico
- Meta’s Appeal Strategy and the Danger of Adverse Precedent
- What the Los Angeles Deadlock Reveals About These Cases
- Broader Implications for Social Media Accountability
What’s Happening With the Los Angeles Jury Right Now?
The Los Angeles Superior Court trial involves a personal injury lawsuit accusing Meta and YouTube of employing deliberately addictive practices that caused harm to users. As of Friday, March 21, 2026, the jury began deliberations after a six-week trial. However, just days into their work, jurors reported that they were having difficulty reaching a verdict—specifically on one of the defendants. Rather than declare a mistrial, the judge instructed the jury to continue their discussions and work toward consensus.
This is a common judicial instruction designed to push juries past gridlock, though it doesn’t guarantee success. The Los Angeles case is potentially landmark because it goes after the fundamental business model of social media: the design patterns and algorithmic features that companies use to maximize user engagement, which often means creating habit-forming interfaces. The jury must weigh whether Meta and YouTube knowingly designed features to be addictive, whether that caused injury, and whether the companies are liable. Unlike a criminal trial where the burden is “beyond a reasonable doubt,” civil trials require only a “preponderance of the evidence”—essentially, whether it’s more likely than not that the defendant is responsible. That lower standard can make juror agreement easier to reach, but in this case, clearly something about the evidence or legal instructions has created genuine disagreement.
The New Mexico Verdict: Meta Liable on All Counts
In sharp contrast, the New Mexico jury delivered a swift and decisive verdict on Tuesday, March 24, 2026. After a six-week trial, jurors found meta liable on all counts, ruling that the company violated New Mexico state law by knowingly harming children’s mental health and actively concealing knowledge of child sexual exploitation happening on its platforms. The verdict was particularly harsh: the jury identified thousands of separate violations, with each one counted independently, which multiplied Meta’s liability. The damages award came to $375 million—substantial on its face, but notably less than half of the $2 billion that state prosecutors sought.
The New Mexico trial was state-level, not federal, which meant it operated under different legal standards and focused on different claims than the Los Angeles case. State attorneys argued that Meta had internal research showing its platforms harmed teenagers’ mental health—research the company kept largely internal—and that Meta failed to adequately protect minors from sexual predators and exploitation. The jury’s finding on all counts suggests that the evidence of Meta’s knowledge and negligence was persuasive. However, the damages award being less than one-quarter of what prosecutors requested indicates that while jurors believed Meta was liable, they had reservations about the severity of financial punishment or the dollar amount attached to each violation.
Two Different Trials, Two Different Legal Theories, One Company Problem
It’s important to understand that these are fundamentally different lawsuits, which is why the outcomes differ. The Los Angeles trial focuses on addictive design—whether Meta intentionally created features to maximize engagement regardless of harm. The New Mexico trial focused on specific harms: mental health damage and enabling child sexual exploitation. New Mexico’s case was also state-level, bringing claims under state consumer protection and public nuisance laws, whereas Los Angeles involves personal injury litigation.
The different legal frameworks explain some of the differences in jury outcomes, but both cases target the same underlying business: Meta’s operation of social media platforms. However, the convergence of these cases—both resulting in findings of serious harm within the same week—creates a troubling pattern for Meta. Even if the Los Angeles jury eventually deadlocks and results in a mistrial, the New Mexico verdict is a permanent record of a jury finding Meta liable for known harms. The company’s statement that it “respectfully disagrees with the verdict and will appeal” suggests a long legal fight ahead, but the existence of a guilty verdict in one major trial significantly changes Meta’s litigation risk profile. Defense attorneys will have difficulty arguing that no jury could ever find Meta liable, because one just did.
Timeline of What Happens Next in New Mexico
The New Mexico case doesn’t end with the $375 million verdict. The trial was structured in phases. Phase 1, which just concluded, established Meta’s liability and the damages owed. Phase 2 is scheduled for May 4, 2026, and will not involve the jury—instead, a judge will determine whether Meta created a “public nuisance” in New Mexico and whether the company should be required to fund public remedy programs in the state. This is a significant distinction: public nuisance findings can impose obligations beyond financial damages, such as mandated changes to platform features or required investments in safety programs.
If the judge finds a public nuisance, Meta could face structural remedies, not just a damages check. The timeline gives Meta’s legal team a window to prepare for Phase 2, though Meta has already signaled it intends to appeal the verdict. In the U.S. legal system, appeals can take years to resolve, and it’s unlikely the $375 million payment would be executed while an appeal is pending. The Los Angeles jury continues deliberating with no announced timeline, though juries typically reach verdicts or deadlock within days or weeks, not months. By May 4, 2026, there could be a clearer picture of how many juries are willing to hold Meta accountable.
Meta’s Appeal Strategy and the Danger of Adverse Precedent
Meta’s immediate response—announcing its disagreement and stated intention to appeal—is standard legal playbook for large companies facing major verdicts. However, appealing the New Mexico verdict is risky for Meta because it means keeping the liability finding in the public record while the appeal winds through courts. Appeals courts typically do not retry cases; instead, they review whether the trial was conducted fairly and whether the verdict had sufficient evidence to support it.
A jury verdict is generally very difficult to overturn on appeal, especially in a civil case where the jury simply must find liability “more likely than not.” The danger for Meta is that a successful appeal requires demonstrating legal error by the trial judge or a complete absence of evidence to support the verdict. Given that jurors found liability on all counts after a six-week trial, an appellate court would have to conclude that no reasonable jury could have reached that verdict—a high bar. Meanwhile, every appeal that fails becomes precedent that Meta is indeed liable for these harms, making it easier for other states and plaintiffs to bring similar cases. If Meta loses its appeal, the company faces a cascade of copycat lawsuits modeled on New Mexico’s theory.
What the Los Angeles Deadlock Reveals About These Cases
The Los Angeles jury’s difficulty reaching a verdict, even after the judge urged them to continue deliberating, is telling. It suggests that the addictive-design theory—while compelling enough to get past a jury selection process and a six-week trial—is complicated enough that reasonable jurors disagree on liability. Addictive design cases are harder to prove than direct harm cases like New Mexico’s, because the plaintiff must show both that Meta intentionally designed addictive features and that the plaintiff personally suffered injury as a result. In the New Mexico case, the state was arguing that the company caused harm to children generally, which is a different legal burden than proving individual plaintiffs were harmed by specific design choices.
The ongoing deliberations in Los Angeles don’t mean the lawsuit is failing—they mean it’s testing the jury system as designed. If the jury eventually agrees on a verdict, it could go either way. If they deadlock entirely, the judge will declare a mistrial, and the case could be retried or settled. But the fact that a jury has spent days wrestling with the question “Did Meta design features to be addictive?” shows that this is a harder question for laypeople to answer definitively than the question “Did Meta harm children and conceal sexual exploitation?”.
Broader Implications for Social Media Accountability
These trials are unfolding against a backdrop of regulatory and legislative pressure on Meta and other social media giants. The Federal Trade Commission has already pursued cases against Meta over privacy violations and anti-competitive practices. State legislatures are considering social media safety bills. The convergence of a guilty verdict in New Mexico and ongoing deliberations in Los Angeles suggests that the legal system is finally catching up to public concerns about social media’s harms.
The fact that jurors are willing to hold Meta accountable—at least in the New Mexico case—opens the door to more litigation from states, localities, and private plaintiffs. Meta’s appeal will likely slow things down temporarily, but if the company loses, other jurisdictions will quickly adopt New Mexico’s legal framework. The social media industry has long argued that platform features are protected speech and that regulation should come from Congress, not courts. These verdicts suggest that courts are rejecting that argument and are willing to apply traditional product liability and public nuisance law to digital platforms.