Jury deliberations are continuing this week in a landmark case that could reshape how courts hold social media platforms accountable for harm to minors. The jury in U.S. Federal Court in Los Angeles began deliberations on March 13, 2026, and as of March 23 is still working through the evidence in a case where a 20-year-old California woman, identified as Kaley G.M., alleges that Instagram, Facebook, and YouTube’s addictive design features caused her depression and suicidal ideation starting in childhood. The jury of 12 is examining whether Meta and Google’s platforms were the “substantial factor” in her psychological harm—a legal standard that differs from proving they were the sole cause.
The case has already captured national attention because it’s one of only three “bellwether” trials selected to test legal theories that could apply to an estimated 4,000+ similar claims pending against these companies. The month-long trial testimony exposed jurors to evidence about platform design features—infinite scroll, algorithmic feeds, push notifications, engagement metrics—and expert testimony about their effects on developing teenage brains. As the jury works through damages calculations and whether causation is sufficiently established, their decisions will set precedent that could lead to either significant liability for tech giants or vindication of their defense arguments.
Table of Contents
- What Are Jurors Currently Deliberating Over?
- How Does the Plaintiff’s Timeline Shape the Case?
- What Evidence Did the Trial Expose About Platform Design?
- Why Is This a “Bellwether” Trial and What Does That Mean?
- What Are the Biggest Challenges in Proving Social Media Addiction Harm?
- What Happens If the Jury Deadlocks?
- What’s Next if the Jury Reaches a Verdict?
What Are Jurors Currently Deliberating Over?
The jury has been deliberating for ten days as of March 23, 2026, and already submitted notes to the judge requesting clarification on damages calculation methodology. This suggests jurors are past the initial phase of reviewing liability and have moved into quantifying potential compensation. In civil cases, the jury doesn’t need unanimous agreement—only nine of the 12 jurors must concur on any verdict, which is a lower threshold than the unanimous requirement in criminal trials.
The jury’s early questions focused on the plaintiff’s personal history, including questions about her family circumstances and her specific usage patterns on Instagram. The fact that jurors are asking detailed factual questions rather than procedural ones is a positive sign from the plaintiff’s perspective—it indicates they’re seriously engaging with evidence of causation rather than dismissing the case outright. However, the defendants’ legal teams would argue these detailed questions show jurors grappling with the complexity of isolating social media as a cause of mental health issues when multiple life factors are typically involved.
How Does the Plaintiff’s Timeline Shape the Case?
Kaley G.M. was only six years old when she first began using YouTube, according to evidence presented during trial. This early exposure to a platform designed for engagement—even when marketed as family-friendly—established a pattern of use during a critical period of brain development.
By her teenage years, her usage had expanded to include Instagram, where algorithmic feeds and social comparison features presented different psychological pressures than the video recommendation engine of YouTube. The timeline matters legally because it allows the plaintiff’s attorneys to argue for continuous, long-term harm across multiple platforms rather than acute damage from a single event. However, this extended timeline also introduces a challenge: jurors must determine how much harm came from social media specifically versus typical adolescent development, peer relationships, academic pressure, family dynamics, and other factors that commonly contribute to teen depression. The defendants’ argument rests on distinguishing between platforms that made difficult teenage years worse versus platforms that were the substantial factor causing her condition—a meaningful legal distinction that jurors must wrestle with.
What Evidence Did the Trial Expose About Platform Design?
The month-long trial included testimony from the plaintiff herself, describing her experience with compulsive usage and the psychological effect of metrics like likes, comments, and algorithmic visibility. Expert witnesses testified about how these platforms’ design features—particularly infinite scroll and algorithmic content feeds—are engineered to maximize engagement time, which benefits advertisers and platform revenue but can amplify anxiety and depression in vulnerable users. The trial also presented evidence about internal company knowledge.
Both Meta and Google’s testimony included questions about whether their executives and designers understood the addictive potential of their features and chose to implement them anyway. This is where the case becomes most damaging to the companies—if jurors believe the defendants knowingly designed addictive systems, damages can increase substantially. Conversely, if jurors conclude the platforms were primarily responding to user demand and algorithmic complexity rather than deliberate design for harm, liability becomes more limited.
Why Is This a “Bellwether” Trial and What Does That Mean?
Bellwether trials are selected test cases used to establish precedent and predict outcomes for hundreds or thousands of similar pending claims. This case is one of three chosen by courts to determine whether social media addiction and related mental health harm represent viable legal claims against major tech platforms. The results here will influence settlement negotiations, trial strategy, and jury expectations in the estimated 4,000+ pending cases involving similar allegations.
If this jury finds Meta and Google liable and awards significant damages, it would validate the legal theory that plaintiffs can hold tech companies responsible for designing addictive products that harm minors, even without direct proof that the platform caused harm (versus merely contributing to it). This would likely trigger mass settlement discussions, increased jury verdict expectations in other trials, and possible legislation addressing platform design and youth mental health. Conversely, if the jury decides the evidence doesn’t meet the legal standard for substantial factor causation, defendants would gain use to dismiss similar cases, and the entire category of youth social media addiction litigation could face years of additional battles to establish liability.
What Are the Biggest Challenges in Proving Social Media Addiction Harm?
One of the most difficult aspects of this case is isolating social media as the cause of mental health issues in a teenager’s life. Adolescent depression and suicidal ideation have multiple contributing factors—family stress, peer relationships, school performance, genetic predisposition, hormonal changes, and yes, social media exposure. The legal standard requires that the defendant’s conduct be a “substantial factor” in causing harm, not merely one factor among many.
However, if X then Y: if the jury believes that social media’s addictive features prevented the plaintiff from developing healthy coping mechanisms during critical developmental years, they might find substantial factor causation even if other factors were also present. Expert testimony becomes crucial here, but jurors often struggle with conflicting expert opinions on mental health causation. Both sides presented credentialed experts—the plaintiff’s experts linking platform design to mental health harm, and the defendants’ experts questioning whether platforms were the substantial cause versus one element in a complex picture. Jurors must decide which experts they trust, and this creates significant uncertainty in deliberations.
What Happens If the Jury Deadlocks?
If the jury cannot reach a nine-juror consensus on liability or damages, the judge must declare a mistrial regarding that element. This doesn’t end the case—it typically leads to either a retrial or settlement negotiations where both sides assess what a jury might do in a second attempt. In high-stakes cases like this, a mistrial on damages sometimes becomes the impetus for reasonable settlement discussions since both parties face the cost and risk of another trial.
A deadlock would be particularly significant in bellwether litigation because it wouldn’t establish clear precedent. The goal of test cases is to give both plaintiffs and defendants clarity on legal viability, jury receptiveness, and damage calculations. A mixed or unclear verdict would leave the broader litigation ecosystem uncertain about how to value similar claims.
What’s Next if the Jury Reaches a Verdict?
Once the jury reaches its decision—whether on liability, damages, or both—there will be a public verdict announcement followed by potential post-trial motions from the losing party. The defendants will likely file motions to set aside the verdict if the judgment goes against them, arguing the verdict is unsupported by evidence. The plaintiff’s team will resist these motions and simultaneously prepare for appeal strategies.
The verdict, whatever it is, will immediately influence the thousands of pending cases. Settlements will likely resume, jury consultants and trial attorneys will analyze what messages persuaded or failed to persuade this jury, and the legal landscape for social media addiction litigation will sharpen considerably. Within months, we’ll likely see either a flood of similar cases moving to settlement or a rapid narrowing of the litigation as defendants use a plaintiff-unfavorable verdict to push for dismissals in other courts.
You Might Also Like
- Social Media Addiction Case Against Meta Still Awaiting Jury Verdict
- Meta and YouTube Face Uncertain Outcome as Social Media Addiction Jury Deliberations Continue
- Social Media Addiction Trial Update: No Verdict Yet as Jury Deliberates Against Meta and YouTube
Open Settlements You Can Claim Now
Browse current class action settlements accepting claims — several require no proof of purchase: