As of March 25, 2026, the landmark Meta and YouTube social media addiction trial in Los Angeles remains without a verdict after eight-plus days of jury deliberations. The jury has been deliberating since the morning of March 13, 2026, following closing arguments delivered on March 12. Most significantly, the jury sent a query to Judge Carolyn Kuhl on March 25 stating, “The jury has difficulty coming to a consensus regarding one defendant,” signaling that at least one of the two major tech defendants may be facing a split or hung jury. This case, brought by a 20-year-old plaintiff identified as “Kaley G.M.,” alleges that Meta and YouTube negligently designed their platforms to be addictive and caused severe mental health damage.
The delayed verdict is not unusual in complex civil litigation, but the jury’s explicit message about difficulty reaching consensus raises the stakes. In a civil case, the jury does not need unanimity—nine of the twelve jurors must agree on each count for a liability finding. However, when jurors are divided on a defendant, it suggests the evidence for or against that company is either particularly compelling or contested. The ongoing deliberations indicate that some jurors likely believe Meta and/or YouTube engaged in negligent or harmful design practices, otherwise the jury would not be wrestling with damage calculations, as they queried about damage methodology during the first week of deliberations.
Table of Contents
- What Is the Meta and YouTube Social Media Addiction Trial and Who Are the Parties Involved?
- What Are the Plaintiff’s Specific Allegations and How Did Platform Use Affect Her?
- How Does the Jury Verdict Process Work in This Civil Case?
- What Does the Jury’s Difficulty Signal, and What Could It Mean for a Verdict?
- Why Is This Case Called a “Bellwether” and What Could the Verdict Mean Nationwide?
- Timeline of Key Events Leading to Current Jury Deliberations
- What Could Happen Next and What Are the Possible Outcomes?
What Is the Meta and YouTube Social Media Addiction Trial and Who Are the Parties Involved?
This is one of the first major trials in the United States testing whether social media platforms can be held legally liable for addiction and mental health harms in young users. The case centers on a California plaintiff, identified in court as “Kaley G.M.” or K.G.M., a 20-year-old woman, against two defendants: Meta Platforms (owner of Instagram and Facebook) and Alphabet Inc. (owner of YouTube). The trial is being heard in Los Angeles Superior Court before Judge Carolyn Kuhl.
This case has been designated as a “bellwether” case, meaning it is representative of thousands of similar lawsuits pending nationwide, and the verdict could set a significant legal precedent about platform liability for psychological harms caused by design features intended to maximize engagement and user time. The plaintiff’s claims focus on negligent and harmful design—the allegation that Meta and YouTube deliberately designed their platforms with features known to encourage addiction and compulsive use, particularly targeting young users. The plaintiff argues that despite knowing these platforms caused anxiety, depression, body dysmorphia, and suicidal ideation in young users, both companies prioritized engagement and advertising revenue over user safety. This differs from traditional product liability cases because social media platforms do not physically injure users; instead, they are accused of causing psychological and emotional harm through algorithmic design and content recommendation systems. The trial has attracted significant media attention because it tests the boundaries of corporate responsibility in the digital age.
What Are the Plaintiff’s Specific Allegations and How Did Platform Use Affect Her?
The plaintiff began using youtube at age 6, initially watching seemingly harmless content like lip gloss tutorials and Animal Jam videos. However, she progressed to using Instagram at age 9, and according to her testimony, this continued exposure to social media led to severe mental health consequences. She claims she developed significant anxiety, depression, body dysmorphia (a distorted perception of her body), and suicidal ideation—all of which she attributes directly to how meta and YouTube designed their platforms. Her attorney argued that the platforms’ algorithmic recommendation systems, engagement metrics, content filters, and emphasis on appearance-based comparison in feeds created a mentally toxic environment, particularly for an adolescent girl.
However, it is important to note that causality between social media use and mental health conditions is hotly contested in the scientific community and was clearly a major point of dispute during this trial. The defense (the companies’ legal teams) likely argued that correlation does not equal causation, that other factors contributed to her mental health struggles, and that the plaintiff had agency in how she used the platforms. The jury’s extended deliberations—particularly the query about difficulty reaching consensus on one defendant—suggests that jurors may be struggling with whether sufficient evidence proves Meta and/or YouTube were the primary cause of harm, or whether multiple factors were responsible. This distinction is legally crucial: a company can only be held liable if the plaintiff proves its conduct was a substantial factor in causing the injury.
How Does the Jury Verdict Process Work in This Civil Case?
The jury consists of twelve jurors, which is standard for civil trials in California. Unlike criminal cases, where a jury verdict typically must be unanimous, civil juries in California only need a supermajority to reach a verdict: nine of the twelve jurors must agree on each count for a liability finding. This means the jury does not need 100% consensus; a three-person minority can hold a different view without blocking a verdict on that particular claim. However, in this case, there is no single verdict on each count—the jury must decide liability separately for Meta and liability separately for YouTube, and potentially on different legal theories (negligent design, failure to warn, breach of duty, etc.).
When the jury sent its query about having “difficulty coming to a consensus regarding one defendant,” it indicates that the jurors may be split between the two defendants. For example, nine or more jurors might believe YouTube is liable, but only six or seven believe Meta is liable, or vice versa. In that scenario, the jury could return a split verdict: finding one company liable and the other not liable. Alternatively, if fewer than nine jurors agree on liability for both companies, the jury might be hung on some counts. The jury’s query to the judge asked for “advice on how to move forward,” which suggests Judge Kuhl likely gave them instructions to continue deliberating, possibly reminding them of their duty to try to reach a verdict if reasonably possible.
What Does the Jury’s Difficulty Signal, and What Could It Mean for a Verdict?
The jury’s explicit statement that it has “difficulty coming to a consensus regarding one defendant” is a rare public insight into deliberations and carries significant weight. It suggests the evidence regarding one of the two companies (either Meta or YouTube) is perceived as more compelling or more contested by different jurors. From a litigation standpoint, this is favorable for whichever defendant the jury finds easier to agree on, but potentially troublesome for the other. If the jury cannot reach nine votes on liability for a particular defendant by a certain deadline, that counts as a mistrial on that claim, and the plaintiff may have the option to retry the case.
It is also possible the jury is struggling with the degree of liability or comparative fault. For instance, some jurors might believe both companies are liable, but in different measures, and they are wrestling with how to allocate responsibility or damages. The fact that the jury inquired about damages calculation during the first week of deliberations suggests that at least some jurors do believe the platforms engaged in harmful design; otherwise, they would not need to calculate damages. However, a damages query does not necessarily mean all twelve jurors have agreed on liability—it could mean a supermajority is leaning toward liability and wanted to understand how much money to award if they find fault.
Why Is This Case Called a “Bellwether” and What Could the Verdict Mean Nationwide?
A bellwether case is a test case intended to give parties and courts an indication of how similar cases might be decided. If Meta and YouTube lose this trial, thousands of plaintiffs with comparable claims will have a legal roadmap and a precedent suggesting that social media platforms can be held liable for design-induced addiction and mental health harms. Conversely, if the companies win, other plaintiffs’ attorneys will need to reassess their legal theories and evidence strategy. The stakes are enormous: Meta and YouTube could face massive exposure to litigation if the verdict establishes that their business models—which rely on maximizing user engagement through algorithmic content delivery—create legal liability for psychological harm.
Courts and legislatures nationwide are watching this case closely. Several states have proposed or passed laws regulating social media algorithms and limiting platform practices targeted at minors. A jury verdict finding that these platforms are indeed liable for addiction and mental health harms would bolster the case for stronger regulation and could accelerate settlement of thousands of pending cases. Conversely, a defense verdict would suggest that current law does not hold platforms liable for design-induced psychological harms, even if companies knew their platforms could cause anxiety or depression. The bellwether designation reflects the scope of the problem: the growing number of young people reporting mental health struggles and attributing them to social media, combined with internal company documents (like the “Facebook Papers”) showing Meta executives understood their platform’s negative psychological effects.
Timeline of Key Events Leading to Current Jury Deliberations
Closing arguments were delivered on March 12, 2026, and jury deliberations began the following morning, March 13, 2026. For the first week of deliberations, the jury focused on understanding the evidence and legal standards. On or around March 19 or 20, 2026 (during the first week), the jury sent a query asking about damage calculation methodology, which suggested that at least some jurors were convinced the platforms engaged in negligent or harmful design and were trying to figure out how much money to award if they found liability. This early damages question is a positive indicator for the plaintiff, as it shows the jury moved beyond liability and was considering remedy.
By March 25, 2026—day eight or nine of deliberations—the jury sent its more troubling query stating it had difficulty reaching consensus on one defendant. The judge’s response (not publicly detailed) likely encouraged continued deliberation, possibly with additional jury instructions on how to weigh evidence or apply the law to facts. The extended timeline is not unusual; high-stakes civil cases with complex evidence (involving algorithms, user psychology, medical expert testimony, and corporate intent) frequently require weeks of jury deliberation. However, the length of this deliberation and the jury’s signal of difficulty increases the likelihood of a partial verdict, split verdict, or potential mistrial on some claims.
What Could Happen Next and What Are the Possible Outcomes?
There are several possible outcomes when the jury finally does return. The most straightforward would be a verdict finding both Meta and YouTube liable on some or all counts, with damages awarded (money the companies must pay the plaintiff). Given that this is a bellwether case, any substantial plaintiff victory would likely trigger settlement discussions in the thousands of pending similar cases.
Alternatively, the jury could return a split verdict—finding one company liable and the other not liable—which would be legally valid under the supermajority rule and would set a more detailed precedent. A hung jury (where the jury cannot reach a supermajority on one or more counts) is also possible, particularly if the jury remains deadlocked on one defendant while reaching agreement on the other. In that scenario, the plaintiff could elect to retry the case, but the costs and delays make this option less attractive. Finally, the jury could find both companies not liable, which would be a complete defense victory and might discourage future litigation of similar claims—though class action attorneys would likely argue the verdict was jury error or the result of jury bias, and could appeal or pursue other legal strategies.
You Might Also Like
- Jury Still Reviewing Arguments in Meta and YouTube Case
- Meta and YouTube Trial Outcome Still Unknown as Jury Delays Verdict
- Meta and YouTube Trial Outcome Still Pending as Jury Deliberates
Open Settlements You Can Claim Now
Browse current class action settlements accepting claims — several require no proof of purchase: