After nearly two weeks of deliberation, jurors in a landmark Los Angeles social media addiction case indicated they are struggling to reach a verdict on one unnamed defendant, signaling a potential deadlock in one of the first major trials to test whether Meta knowingly created addictive features that harmed young users. On March 24, 2026, Judge Carolyn B. Kuhl ordered the jury to continue deliberating rather than declare a mistrial, noting that if the jury cannot reach consensus, a retrial would be necessary for that defendant. This stalled verdict comes at a critical moment for Meta’s litigation exposure: over 2,000 pending lawsuits across the country are waiting to see how this Los Angeles jury will rule on a case that has already reached the damages phase of deliberation.
The trial, which began in early February 2026, centers on a young woman named Kaley, who claims that Meta and YouTube deliberately designed their platforms with addictive features that caused her significant psychological harm—including body dysmorphia, anxiety, depression, and suicidal ideation—from the time she began using YouTube at age 6 and Instagram at age 9. As of March 25, 2026, the jury has already determined Meta and YouTube liable for the harm in question and has moved into the damages-calculation phase. However, the jury’s reported trouble reaching a verdict on one defendant suggests disagreement over either liability or the appropriate financial award.
Table of Contents
- What Is Happening in the Los Angeles Social Media Addiction Trial?
- The Claims Against Meta and YouTube in the Kaley Case
- Why Does the Jury’s Deadlock Matter for Meta’s Legal Exposure?
- Timeline and What Happens If the Jury Deadlocks
- A Surprising Development: The New Mexico Verdict Issued the Same Day
- What These Two Verdicts Reveal About Meta’s Liability Exposure
- What Happens Next in the Los Angeles Case and Beyond
What Is Happening in the Los Angeles Social Media Addiction Trial?
The Los Angeles case represents the first major jury verdict on claims that social media platforms knowingly engineered addictive features targeting young users. According to reports, the jury has been deliberating since March 13, 2026—a period of nearly two weeks—and indicated on March 24 that they are experiencing difficulty reaching a verdict specifically on one unnamed defendant. This suggests the jury may have already agreed on liability or damages regarding one of the two defendants (meta or YouTube), but remains deadlocked on the other. The judge’s decision to order continued deliberation rather than declare a mistrial reflects the high stakes of the case and the importance of seeking a clear verdict rather than a hung jury outcome.
Judge Kuhl’s instructions to the jury acknowledged the real possibility of a deadlock: she noted that if the jury cannot reach consensus, a retrial would be necessary for the defendant(s) where consensus fails. This means the case could potentially proceed to a second trial, with all the associated costs, time, and uncertainty that implies. For context, the original trial took two months from filing to the jury impasse phase, suggesting a second trial would likely consume similar resources. The jury’s struggle at this stage indicates that even though the evidence may have satisfied jurors on core liability questions, the damages calculation or some aspect of attribution between Meta and YouTube remains contentious.
The Claims Against Meta and YouTube in the Kaley Case
The plaintiff in the Los Angeles case, identified only as Kaley, began using YouTube at age 6 and transitioned to Instagram at age 9, representing an exceptionally young age of exposure to these platforms. Her lawsuit alleges that Meta and YouTube deliberately designed their platforms with features engineered to maximize user engagement and time spent on the services—features such as algorithmic recommendation systems, infinite scroll, notifications, and engagement metrics—with full knowledge that this design strategy would be particularly addictive and psychologically harmful to developing children and adolescents. This allegation strikes at the core of how social media platforms operate: the business model itself is predicated on user engagement, and the accusation is that the companies weaponized psychological principles to lock users into compulsive behavior.
The specific harms Kaley alleges she suffered as a result of prolonged, algorithmically-driven exposure to these platforms include body dysmorphia (distorted perception of her own body resulting from comparison to curated images), anxiety, depression, and suicidal ideation. These claims align with broader public health concerns about the mental health effects of social media on adolescents, though this is believed to be one of the first jury trials to hold a platform company liable for such damages. It is important to note, however, that while Kaley’s case focuses on these specific harms, not every young person who uses these platforms experiences the same psychological effects. The case does not establish a universal causal link between social media use and mental health deterioration; rather, it asks the jury to determine whether Meta and YouTube’s specific design choices caused this particular plaintiff’s documented injuries.
Why Does the Jury’s Deadlock Matter for Meta’s Legal Exposure?
The significance of this case extends far beyond Kaley’s individual compensation. According to reports, over 2,000 pending lawsuits against meta and other social media platforms depend on the outcome of this trial. Many of these suits involve similar allegations—that platforms knowingly designed addictive features targeting minors—and many will likely reference the Los Angeles jury’s verdict as either a precedent or a cautionary tale. If the jury returns a verdict finding Meta or YouTube liable for significant damages, it would establish that a jury of ordinary citizens believes the company’s conduct was wrongful and damaging, even if appeal courts later overturn or reduce the verdict.
Conversely, if a deadlock forces a retrial or results in a defense verdict, it suggests the liability case may be weaker than expected, potentially encouraging settlements at lower values or dismissals of pending cases. The case is particularly important because it is among the first major jury trials specifically focused on social media addiction claims. Prior litigation has centered on data privacy breaches, content moderation failures, or securities fraud, but this case makes the novel argument that the platforms’ core product—the addictive design of the platforms themselves—caused compensable injury to users. The jury’s struggle to reach consensus suggests that while some jurors were convinced of liability, others were not, or that disagreement exists on the appropriate damages amount. This kind of split verdict (where jurors agree on some points but deadlock on others) is instructive for future litigants and defendants alike, as it reveals which aspects of the addiction argument resonated with jurors and which did not.
Timeline and What Happens If the Jury Deadlocks
The Los Angeles trial began in early February 2026, meaning the trial phase itself lasted approximately two months before the jury began deliberations on March 13. The jury reported their impasse on March 24, after eleven days of deliberation, at which point Judge Kuhl issued her order for continued deliberation rather than accepting a mistrial. This timeline is significant because it shows that the jury spent considerable time on the merits of the case before encountering difficulty—suggesting the disagreement is not on a minor or easily resolved point, but something substantive about either liability or damages calculations. If the jury cannot reach a verdict despite continued deliberation, the judge will declare a mistrial on the counts where consensus is impossible, and the case will be set for retrial.
A retrial would mean selecting a new jury, presenting evidence again, and repeating the entire trial process—a costly and time-consuming prospect for all parties involved. However, Judge Kuhl’s willingness to push for continued deliberation rather than prematurely declare a mistrial reflects a judicial preference for seeking a verdict when possible. In many jurisdictions, judges encourage jurors to continue deliberating even when an impasse seems likely, as deadlocked juries sometimes find paths to consensus after reconsidering their positions. The alternative—immediately accepting a hung jury—denies the parties the resolution they have spent months and significant resources pursuing.
A Surprising Development: The New Mexico Verdict Issued the Same Day
On March 24-25, 2026—the very same days the Los Angeles jury reported its impasse—a separate jury in New Mexico reached a verdict against Meta in a child safety case brought by New Mexico Attorney General Raúl Torrez. That jury awarded $375 million in damages and found that Meta violated New Mexico’s Unfair Practices Act by engaging in “unfair and deceptive” and “unconscionable” trade practices. The New Mexico trial, which lasted nearly seven weeks, centered on a different set of allegations: that Meta failed to adequately warn users about dangers on its platforms and failed to protect children from sexual predators on Facebook, Instagram, and WhatsApp.
The New Mexico case employed an undercover investigation as key evidence: authorities created a fake profile of a 13-year-old girl and documented the numerous child exploitation solicitations she received, demonstrating the ease with which predators could contact minors on Meta’s platforms. This verdict, significantly, was reached by a jury that appears to have had less internal disagreement than the Los Angeles jury, suggesting that the evidence of Meta’s failure to protect children from predation was persuasive and less contentious. The $375 million award is substantial but relatively modest compared to some civil jury awards, though it is among the largest verdicts against a social media platform. Meta has stated it plans to appeal the New Mexico verdict, indicating the company disputes either the liability finding or the damages calculation.
What These Two Verdicts Reveal About Meta’s Liability Exposure
The stark contrast between the Los Angeles jury’s impasse and the New Mexico jury’s decisive $375 million verdict reveals something important about Meta’s legal vulnerability: the company faces liability on multiple fronts, but jurors may view different categories of harm with different levels of conviction. The New Mexico case, focused on Meta’s failure to protect children from sexual predators, apparently presented evidence so compelling that jurors reached near-unanimous agreement on liability and damages.
The Los Angeles case, which requires jurors to accept the more complex argument that addictive design itself causes psychological harm, appears to have divided the jury, suggesting some jurors questioned either the causal connection between platform design and Kaley’s specific injuries or the propriety of awarding damages for such harms. For consumers and class action members who have filed or may file claims against Meta, these two verdicts suggest different legal pathways: claims focused on failures to protect from exploitation or predation may face a clearer liability standard, while claims based on addictive design causing psychological harm may encounter more skeptical juries. However, the New Mexico verdict also demonstrated that juries are willing to hold Meta accountable for child safety failures with substantial financial awards, establishing a precedent that may embolden similar cases and encourage settlements in pending litigation.
What Happens Next in the Los Angeles Case and Beyond
As of March 25, 2026, the jury in the Los Angeles case remains in deliberation, with Judge Kuhl having ordered continued discussion aimed at reaching a verdict. The outcome will likely determine the trajectory of thousands of pending social media addiction cases. If the jury eventually reaches a verdict finding Meta or YouTube liable for significant damages, it would validate the addiction argument and likely trigger a wave of settlements in pending cases.
If the jury deadlocks and a retrial is ordered, it could extend the litigation timeline by months or years, delaying resolution for all pending claimants and potentially emboldening defendants’ legal positions. The New Mexico verdict, meanwhile, has likely already affected settlement discussions in similar child safety cases pending against Meta. Meta’s plan to appeal that verdict means the company believes the judgment is either legally flawed or excessive, but an appeal will take time, and in the interim, the precedent of a jury finding Meta liable for $375 million in child safety damages will loom over settlement negotiations in comparable cases. For consumers who have suffered harm related to social media platform design or child safety failures, the present moment represents a critical juncture: verdicts are coming, but litigation outcomes remain uncertain, and the final resolution of these cases may depend significantly on the Los Angeles jury’s next deliberative steps.