A Los Angeles jury continues deliberations in a landmark civil trial that could reshape accountability for social media platforms designed to addict minors. As of March 25, 2026, jurors are weighing whether Meta’s Instagram and Google’s YouTube engaged in unfair and deceptive practices that caused documented psychological harm to a 20-year-old woman plaintiff. The jury, which began deliberations on Friday and moved into the damages phase by Monday, must reach a 9-of-12 non-unanimous verdict on each count—a threshold that sets the stage for potentially partial retrials if deadlock occurs on specific defendants.
This case represents the first major jury verdict phase in a wave of social media addiction lawsuits targeting Meta and Google. A 20-year-old woman identified in court as Kaley (also referenced as KGM) alleges that Instagram and YouTube were deliberately engineered with addictive features that led directly to her depression and suicidal ideation. The trial combines her individual damages claim with broader questions about whether these platforms violated consumer protection laws through deceptive design practices. This article explains what the ongoing jury deliberations mean, how the damages phase works, and why a parallel verdict against Meta in New Mexico adds significant weight to these allegations.
Table of Contents
- What Is the Los Angeles Social Media Addiction Trial and Why Does It Matter?
- How Does the Jury Verdict Requirement Work in This Case?
- The Plaintiff’s Evidence and the Mental Health Allegations
- Understanding the New Mexico Meta Verdict and What It Signals
- What Happens After the Verdict—And What Consumers Should Know
- How This Case Fits Into the Broader Accountability Movement
- What to Watch for as Deliberations Continue
What Is the Los Angeles Social Media Addiction Trial and Why Does It Matter?
The Los Angeles case is a civil lawsuit, not a criminal prosecution, which means Meta and Google face monetary damages rather than criminal penalties. The plaintiff argues that both companies knew their platforms employed algorithmic engagement tactics designed to maximize user addiction—particularly among adolescents and young adults—while downplaying documented harms to mental health. Unlike regulatory settlements where companies pay fines without admitting wrongdoing, a jury verdict in a civil trial creates a legal finding that the defendants’ conduct was unlawful and caused measurable harm to the plaintiff. What makes this trial historically significant is that it’s one of the first jury verdicts to reach a damages phase in the social media addiction litigation wave.
Previous cases have settled, been dismissed, or remained in early phases. The jury’s findings could establish legal precedent for similar claims against Meta, Google, and other platforms. If jurors rule against the defendants, it signals to other plaintiffs’ lawyers that juries are willing to hold tech platforms accountable for addictive design—potentially opening the door to hundreds of similar cases. The damages phase itself is critical: jurors must decide not just whether wrongdoing occurred, but how much the plaintiff should be compensated for mental health treatment, emotional suffering, lost earning potential, and other harms. The judge has indicated that if the jury deadlocks on any single defendant (Meta or Google), the court may need to declare a mistrial on that count and retry the case, which could extend litigation for months or years.
How Does the Jury Verdict Requirement Work in This Case?
This civil case requires 9 of 12 jurors to agree on a verdict for each claim and each defendant—a non-unanimous threshold that differs from criminal trials, which typically require unanimity. This means meta and Google could potentially face mixed verdicts: the jury might find Meta liable while voting to acquit Google, or vice versa. They might also find defendants liable on some counts but not others, creating a layered verdict that applies different damages calculations to different violations.
However, if even four jurors hold out against conviction on any single count, that count ends in a mistrial for that defendant. The judge has made clear that retrying a deadlocked count would require a new jury and new trial, meaning the case could drag on indefinitely. This creates significant pressure on both the plaintiff’s legal team and the defendants’ attorneys to accept whatever verdict emerges rather than push for retrials. For observers following the case, watch for any public statements from either side requesting a new trial—that signals the verdict was split in ways one party views as unfavorable.
The Plaintiff’s Evidence and the Mental Health Allegations
The 20-year-old plaintiff’s case centers on Instagram and YouTube as separate platforms with distinct addictive mechanisms. Instagram, owned by Meta, operates primarily through infinite scroll feeds, algorithmic recommendations, and engagement-driven notifications designed to keep users checking the app throughout the day and night. YouTube, owned by Google, uses autoplay features and algorithmic recommendations that automatically queue the next video before a viewer finishes watching, often leading to multi-hour viewing sessions.
The plaintiff alleges she experienced depression and suicidal ideation directly connected to using these platforms. The trial likely introduced expert testimony on how algorithmic feeds create dopamine feedback loops, how platforms intentionally obscure time-spent metrics to prevent self-awareness of excessive use, and how Meta and Google’s own internal research (including leaked documents) showed awareness of these harms before the platforms took action. This isn’t a hypothetical argument—both companies have faced investigations and leaks revealing internal acknowledgment that their platforms negatively impact youth mental health. The jury’s job was to evaluate whether these known harms constitute unfair and deceptive trade practices under California consumer protection law, and whether the specific plaintiff deserves compensation.
Understanding the New Mexico Meta Verdict and What It Signals
On March 24, 2026—just days before the Los Angeles jury moved to deliberations—a separate jury in New Mexico reached a verdict against Meta, ordering the company to pay $375 million in damages. This verdict is already final; the jury found Meta liable on all counts for violating New Mexico consumer protection laws through unfair and deceptive trade practices involving child safety. The New Mexico jury identified thousands of individual violations, each counting separately in the damages calculation. The state’s prosecutors had sought over $1.9 billion in penalties, but the jury awarded $375 million—still a massive judgment and the largest liability verdict Meta has faced in recent consumer protection litigation.
The timing and geography matter. New Mexico is a different state with different consumer protection laws, a different jury pool, and a different judge, yet the verdict reached the same conclusion about Meta’s liability. For the Los Angeles jury deliberating this week, the New Mexico verdict provides a real-world precedent: a jury of peers has already found Meta liable for the exact same type of conduct (addictive platform design with deceptive practices). While the Los Angeles jury should technically decide the case on its own merits, jurors are human beings aware of current events, and knowledge of the New Mexico verdict could influence their confidence in ruling against Meta.
What Happens After the Verdict—And What Consumers Should Know
Once the Los Angeles jury reaches a verdict, the trial will move to post-verdict motions, where the judge can reduce damages, overturn verdicts, or order new trials. Defendants almost always file motions asking the court to disregard jury findings, and judges sometimes grant them. However, any verdict against Meta and Google would be appealable by both sides, meaning the case could move to state appellate courts even if the jury rules decisively for the plaintiff. For consumers monitoring this case, the critical limitation is that jury verdicts in individual civil suits don’t automatically create compensation for other affected people.
This verdict, if it favors the plaintiff, applies to her specific claims and her specific damages. However, it could open the door to class action certification in this case or others, potentially enabling thousands of social media addiction victims to join a single lawsuit and share in settlements or verdicts. Some courts fast-track class action motions after individual verdicts in mass tort cases, recognizing that if one person won, many others likely have similar claims. The next phase for consumers and their lawyers will be watching whether this verdict leads to class action expansion or remains a single-plaintiff victory.
How This Case Fits Into the Broader Accountability Movement
This Los Angeles trial is part of a nationwide wave of litigation targeting social media platforms for harm to young people. Multiple states’ attorneys general have filed complaints with the Federal Trade Commission, Congress has held hearings on platform accountability, and numerous class action suits remain pending in various jurisdictions.
The combination of a New Mexico jury verdict and an ongoing Los Angeles jury deliberation suggests that juries—which represent average community members, not just lawyers or judges—are increasingly willing to hold Meta and Google responsible for documented harms. Meta and Google have collectively spent millions defending these cases while simultaneously spending billions on lobbying and public relations to reframe social media addiction as a matter of personal responsibility rather than platform design. The jury verdicts contradict that narrative: if platforms are genuinely neutral tools and users are simply making bad choices, why would juries find systematic unfair and deceptive practices? The answer is that expert testimony, internal company documents, and algorithm design evidence increasingly paint a picture of deliberately engineered addiction mechanics, not accidental harm.
What to Watch for as Deliberations Continue
The Los Angeles jury’s timeline will be the next indicator of verdict likelihood. Jury deliberations lasting days or weeks typically signal disagreement, while quick verdicts (hours or a single day) suggest juror consensus. If deliberations extend beyond this week or next, it could indicate deadlock on damages amounts or liability on specific defendants—signs that the judge might need to declare a mistrial on contested counts.
For consumers and families affected by social media addiction, this trial’s outcome matters less for any individual compensation check (which would likely go to the plaintiff, not to all affected users) and more for establishing legal precedent. A verdict against Meta and Google strengthens future claims by thousands of other plaintiffs, validates expert testimony about addictive platform design, and potentially accelerates settlement discussions in pending class actions. The New Mexico verdict already signals that juries take these claims seriously; the Los Angeles verdict could formalize that consensus.