The jury in the Los Angeles case against Meta and Google continues deliberations as of March 25, 2026, after signaling possible deadlock on March 24. Meanwhile, the related Meta case in New Mexico reached a landmark verdict the same day: a jury ordered Meta to pay $375 million in damages for violating consumer protection laws and failing to protect children from sexual predators. The LA case involves K.G.M., a 20-year-old plaintiff from Chico, California, who alleges both Meta and Google/YouTube used deliberate “addictive practices” designed to cause harm. These two trials represent the most significant legal accountability for social media companies’ impact on young users, with the New Mexico verdict setting a powerful precedent for the ongoing LA deliberations. The stakes in both cases extend far beyond the individual verdicts.
If the LA jury reaches a guilty verdict, it could open the door to thousands of similar lawsuits against Meta and YouTube. If they deadlock, Judge Carolyn B. Kuhl has indicated a potential partial retrial may be necessary. The New Mexico verdict demonstrates that juries are willing to hold social media platforms responsible for inadequate child safety protections and mental health harms—a position that directly supports the plaintiff’s claims in Los Angeles. The convergence of these two trials in March 2026 marks a turning point in how courts evaluate social media company liability. Unlike older litigation that focused on individual content moderation decisions, both cases target the business models themselves: the algorithmic systems and design choices deliberately engineered to maximize engagement at the expense of user wellbeing.
Table of Contents
- What’s Happening in the Los Angeles Social Media Addiction Trial?
- The New Mexico Verdict and Its Precedent for the LA Case
- The Timeline of Deliberations and Verdict Announcement
- What “Addictive Practices” Means in the LA Case
- The Risk of a Hung Jury and Partial Retrial
- Implications for Consumers and Future Social Media Litigation
- What Happens Next and the Future of Social Media Accountability
What’s Happening in the Los Angeles Social Media Addiction Trial?
The Los Angeles case began with opening arguments weeks before the jury started deliberations on March 13, 2026. The plaintiff, K.G.M., claims that meta (Facebook/Instagram) and Google (YouTube) intentionally designed their platforms to be addictive, causing psychological and emotional harm. The legal argument centers on “addictive practices”—specific product design choices such as infinite scroll, notification systems, algorithm-driven content feeds, and engagement metrics that keep users coming back. Unlike the New Mexico case, which focused on Meta’s failure to protect children from predators, the LA case directly challenges the platforms’ engagement mechanics. Judge Carolyn B. Kuhl oversees the trial in Los Angeles Superior Court.
On March 24, the jury signaled that it might not be able to reach unanimous agreement on all charges—what lawyers call a “hung jury.” Rather than declare a mistrial immediately, the judge took the step of ordering continued deliberations on March 25, a procedural move designed to give the jury additional time to reach consensus. However, the judge also warned that if the jury remains deadlocked, a partial retrial may be necessary for one of the defendants. This means that if jurors cannot agree on Meta’s liability, the case might proceed to a second trial focusing only on Google, or vice versa. The pressure on the jury is intense. Both Meta and Google have considerable resources to defend themselves, but the New Mexico verdict handed down the same day the jury signaled potential deadlock shifts the psychological and legal landscape. A jury in a similar case has already determined that such platforms can cause genuine harm, making it harder for defense attorneys to argue that addictive design is merely standard practice.
The New Mexico Verdict and Its Precedent for the LA Case
On March 24, 2026, a jury in Santa Fe, New Mexico concluded nearly seven weeks of trial by ordering Meta to pay $375 million in damages. The verdict was definitive: the jury found Meta violated New Mexico’s consumer protection and unfair practices act by failing to warn users about dangers and by providing inadequate protection of children from sexual predators. More strikingly, the jury made a specific finding that Meta “knowingly harmed children’s mental health and safety.” This language is crucial because it establishes that courts recognize the connection between platform design and child safety. The New Mexico case focused specifically on Meta’s negligence regarding child protection. The jury determined that Meta knew, or should have known, that its platforms were being exploited by sexual predators and that Meta’s safety measures were insufficient.
The $375 million penalty is substantial enough to signal that juries take this issue seriously. For comparison, this figure represents real financial consequences that could motivate policy changes at the company level. The timing of the New Mexico verdict matters enormously for the LA jury. Jurors in Los Angeles likely learned about the verdict through news coverage or were informed by the judge. The verdict validates the concept that social media companies can be held legally accountable for harms related to user safety and wellbeing. Even if the specific allegations differ—the LA case emphasizes “addictive practices” while New Mexico emphasized child predator protection—both cases rest on the principle that platforms have obligations to their users and can be liable when they fail to meet those obligations.
The Timeline of Deliberations and Verdict Announcement
The LA jury began deliberations on March 13, 2026, meaning they had been discussing the evidence for approximately two weeks before signaling potential deadlock on March 24. Jury deliberations in complex civil cases typically range from a few days to several weeks, depending on the complexity of evidence and the number of defendant claims being evaluated. Two weeks is neither unusually short nor unusually long, suggesting the jury was methodically working through the arguments but encountering genuine disagreement on some points. The judge’s decision to order continued deliberations on March 25 rather than declare a mistrial immediately reflects the principle that hung juries should be avoided when possible. However, continued deliberations do not always result in unanimous agreement.
If after further discussion the jury still cannot reach consensus, the judge has already telegraphed that a partial retrial is possible. This would mean one defendant (likely Google or Meta) might face a second jury trial while the other defendant’s case concludes with a mistrial. The New Mexico verdict on March 24-25 created a rare moment where two related cases against Meta reached critical junctures on the same dates. News coverage linked the two cases immediately, with headlines noting the contrast between the decisive $375 million verdict in New Mexico and the stalled jury in Los Angeles. This media coverage likely reinforced to the LA jury that juries elsewhere are finding liability and awarding significant damages.
What “Addictive Practices” Means in the LA Case
The term “addictive practices” in the LA trial refers to specific design choices that social media platforms employ to maximize user engagement and time spent on the platform. These include: infinite scroll (continuous loading of new content without a natural stopping point), algorithmic feeds (content ordered by likelihood of engagement rather than chronological order), notification systems designed to pull users back into the app, like buttons and engagement metrics that create social validation loops, and A/B testing of features to determine which design variations keep users online longest. These aren’t accidental byproducts; they’re intentional design choices made by teams of engineers and product managers. The plaintiff alleges that both Meta and Google knew these design choices were psychologically manipulative and continued using them anyway.
Expert witnesses in the case likely testified about dopamine responses, attention spans, and the parallels between social media design and gambling addiction. The key legal question is whether platforms have a duty to design their products less addictively and whether they’re liable when they prioritize engagement over user wellbeing. Unlike addiction to substances, which involve physiological dependence, social media addiction operates through behavioral conditioning and psychological reward systems that research has increasingly documented. However, the platforms’ defense has likely argued that users choose to spend time on their platforms, that engagement isn’t inherently harmful, and that addictive design elements are industry-standard. This is where the New Mexico verdict becomes a complicating factor: if a jury can find that Meta violated consumer protection laws by knowingly harming children, it becomes harder for defendants to argue that engagement metrics are merely neutral business practices.
The Risk of a Hung Jury and Partial Retrial
A hung jury occurs when jurors cannot reach unanimous agreement—in this case, likely disagreement on whether Meta and Google are liable for addictive practices and, if so, what damages should be awarded. Judge Kuhl’s warning about a potential partial retrial suggests that even if the jury deadlocks, the case may not end entirely. Instead, one defendant might face a new trial while the other case concludes with a mistrial or settlement. This scenario is legally possible and has occurred in high-profile cases before. The practical impact of a partial retrial is significant. A new trial means additional legal costs, additional jury time, and the possibility of a different outcome.
The second jury, however, would have the advantage of knowing the first jury’s reasoning—if those deliberations are disclosed—and the New Mexico verdict would serve as additional precedent. Defense teams would need to substantially adjust their strategy or evidence presentation. Additionally, a partial retrial creates uncertainty that may incentivize settlement discussions between the parties. One important limitation to understand: if the jury deadlocks completely and the judge declares a mistrial, it does not mean the plaintiff loses. A mistrial simply resets the case, and the plaintiff retains the right to retry the case with a new jury. However, the cost and time required for a second trial can be prohibitive, which is why many cases settle after a hung jury rather than proceeding to retrial.
Implications for Consumers and Future Social Media Litigation
These cases establish important precedents for what consumers can expect regarding company accountability. If the LA jury reaches a verdict against Meta and Google, it would signal that platforms can be sued for the addictive properties of their design, not just for individual harmful content or inadequate moderation. This could result in thousands of copycat lawsuits from users who claim harm from social media addiction. The New Mexico verdict already demonstrates that companies face real financial consequences for child safety failures.
The $375 million penalty is large enough to catch the attention of corporate boards and shareholders. For consumers, this means that legal accountability is becoming a realistic avenue for addressing harms caused by social media companies. Previous litigation against tech platforms often failed because courts hadn’t yet established clear legal liability. These 2026 cases are changing that landscape.
What Happens Next and the Future of Social Media Accountability
As of March 25, 2026, the LA jury continues deliberations. The judge’s timeline for a final verdict is unclear, but it may come within days or weeks. If the jury reaches a verdict in favor of the plaintiff, the damages award would likely be substantial—comparable to or exceeding the $375 million in New Mexico. If the jury deadlocks, the partial retrial process begins.
Regardless of the LA outcome, the New Mexico verdict has already shifted the legal landscape. Future cases against Meta, Google, TikTok, and other platforms will cite this decision as proof that juries recognize the harms associated with these business models. Lawyers representing plaintiffs will argue that if Meta can be held liable for $375 million in New Mexico, similar liability should extend to other jurisdictions and other platforms. Defense teams will be forced to develop new strategies to counter arguments about intentional harm and inadequate safeguards. The precedent has been set, even if the LA jury deadlocks.