As of March 24, 2026, a jury in Los Angeles remains deadlocked on at least one defendant in a landmark social media addiction trial, with Judge Carolyn B. Kuhl ordering jurors to continue deliberating after they signaled they were having trouble reaching a verdict. The case involves K.G.M., a 20-year-old from Chico, California, who alleges that Meta and YouTube employed addictive design practices specifically targeting her during her youth—prioritizing user engagement to maximize advertising revenue at the expense of her mental health and wellbeing. Meanwhile, in a striking parallel development on the same day, a jury in New Mexico returned a guilty verdict against Meta, finding the company liable on all counts for unfair, deceptive, and unconscionable trade practices, and ordering damages of $375 million.
The Los Angeles trial represents a critical moment in the emerging wave of litigation targeting social media platforms over their impact on young users. While the jury deliberation continues, the New Mexico verdict demonstrates that courts and juries are increasingly willing to hold platforms accountable for deliberately addictive design features that prioritize profits over user safety. These cases establish important precedents about how platforms can be held liable for harmful practices directed at children and teens.
Table of Contents
- Why Is the Los Angeles Jury Deadlocked on the Meta and YouTube Addiction Case?
- What Are the Core Allegations in These Social Media Addiction Lawsuits?
- What Is the Significance of the New Mexico Jury Verdict?
- What Do These Cases Mean for Other Potential Claimants?
- Understanding How Social Media Addiction Claims Are Evaluated by Juries
- What Should You Do if You Believe You Were Harmed by Social Media Addiction?
- What Is the Future of Social Media Addiction Litigation?
Why Is the Los Angeles Jury Deadlocked on the Meta and YouTube Addiction Case?
Judge Carolyn B. Kuhl ordered the jury to continue deliberating after the panel informed her on March 24, 2026, that they were struggling to reach a verdict on at least one defendant. The jury began deliberations on the morning of March 13, 2026, and has been working through the complex evidence for more than ten days. The judge warned jurors that if they could not reach a unanimous verdict on a particular count, a mistrial would be declared on that count, necessitating a completely new trial with a fresh jury. This pressure to continue deliberating is standard in civil trials, where judges often encourage jurors to make another effort to find common ground before declaring a complete deadlock. The complexity of the case likely contributes to the jury’s difficulty.
Proving that a platform deliberately designed addictive features specifically to target young users requires jurors to weigh expert testimony about neuroscience, marketing psychology, and platform algorithms against company defense arguments. The plaintiff, K.G.M., alleged that features like infinite scroll, notification systems, and algorithmic feeds were intentionally designed to keep users engaged far longer than they intended—creating what researchers call “behavioral addiction” patterns similar to gambling or substance abuse. Jurors must also determine which defendant bears responsibility for which harms, and whether Meta’s ownership of Instagram and Facebook, or YouTube’s parent company Google, should be held separately liable. A deadlock on one defendant does not necessarily mean the jury has failed to reach agreement on all counts. It is possible that the jury has found one platform liable while disagreeing on another, or that they have agreed on some charges but remain split on damages. This uncertainty underscores the novelty and difficulty of social media addiction litigation—these cases are establishing legal standards that did not previously exist.
What Are the Core Allegations in These Social Media Addiction Lawsuits?
The plaintiff K.G.M. alleges that meta and YouTube employed what experts call “dark patterns”—deliberately deceptive or manipulative design choices meant to maximize user engagement at the expense of user wellbeing. These practices allegedly include infinite scroll features that remove natural stopping points, notification systems that interrupt daily activities to pull users back to the app, and algorithmic feeds that prioritize emotionally provocative content designed to trigger engagement rather than provide value. The lawsuit claims these features were specifically engineered to be most addictive to young users, whose brains are still developing impulse control and are thus more vulnerable to these techniques. A crucial element of the plaintiff’s case is the distinction between creating engaging products and deliberately manipulating behavior. Every popular app wants users to return and spend time on it, but the allegations here go further—they claim platforms deliberately made their services harder to stop using by exploiting known psychological vulnerabilities in young people.
For example, the infinite scroll feature removes the natural endpoint that page-based designs provided; when users reach the end of a page and must click to see more, some choose to stop. With infinite scroll, the app continuously feeds new content, removing that decision point. This is not an accident of design but a deliberate choice made after extensive A/B testing to determine which approach maximizes engagement time. The business model underlying these practices is critical to the claims. Platforms generate revenue by selling advertisers access to user attention and behavioral data. The longer users stay on the platform and the more data the platforms collect about user behavior, the more valuable they become to advertisers. This creates a direct financial incentive for platforms to make their services as addictive as possible—a financial model fundamentally misaligned with user wellbeing, particularly for developing young people.
What Is the Significance of the New Mexico Jury Verdict?
On the same day the Los Angeles jury signaled deadlock, a jury in New Mexico returned a decisive verdict against Meta on March 24, 2026, finding the company liable on all counts for unfair and deceptive practices and unconscionable trade practices under New Mexico law. The jury ordered Meta to pay $375 million in damages. This verdict is significant because it represents the first major successful outcome in social media addiction litigation and demonstrates that juries are willing to hold platforms accountable for design practices that harm children’s mental health and safety. The New Mexico verdict focused specifically on Meta’s platforms (Facebook and Instagram) and the company’s role in child safety and exploitation. The jury found that Meta’s platforms are demonstrably harmful to children’s mental health and safety, a finding that echoes conclusions from major health organizations and published research.
A $375 million verdict, while substantial, may represent just a fraction of Meta’s annual revenue (which exceeds $100 billion), yet it establishes the crucial legal principle that platforms can be held liable for knowingly deploying harmful design practices, regardless of their size or profitability. The verdict also sends a signal to other companies in the tech industry that juries are willing to find them liable for similar conduct. What makes the New Mexico case particularly important is that it concluded while the Los Angeles case remains undecided. This creates asymmetry in the legal landscape—Meta has already been found liable for unfair and deceptive practices in New Mexico, but the outcome in Los Angeles remains uncertain. If the Los Angeles jury deadlocks completely, Meta may face a new trial on those counts, extending the litigation. If the jury eventually finds Meta liable, it would reinforce the New Mexico verdict and likely lead to additional cases.
What Do These Cases Mean for Other Potential Claimants?
The outcomes and proceedings in both the Los Angeles and New Mexico cases have important implications for individuals who believe they were harmed by social media addiction. If you were a young person whose mental health, sleep, academic performance, or relationships were negatively affected by time spent on Meta or YouTube platforms, these cases demonstrate that the platforms may be held legally accountable for the design practices that made those platforms difficult to stop using. The New Mexico verdict establishes that courts recognize social media addiction as a real harm deserving of damages, which may encourage more individuals to come forward or join class action lawsuits. However, it is important to understand that success in one case does not guarantee success in others.
Jury verdicts depend on the specific evidence presented, the skill of attorneys, the judge’s rulings on which evidence is admissible, and the particular facts of each case. The Los Angeles jury’s difficulty reaching a verdict suggests that the case against YouTube or the case framed slightly differently can produce different outcomes. Additionally, the legal standards and laws vary by jurisdiction; the New Mexico jury applied New Mexico consumer protection laws, while the Los Angeles jury must apply California law, which may have different standards for what constitutes unfair or deceptive conduct. This means that a plaintiff in a different state might face a different legal standard and thus a different likelihood of success.
Understanding How Social Media Addiction Claims Are Evaluated by Juries
When a jury evaluates a social media addiction case, they must answer several distinct legal questions. First, did the platform engage in unfair or deceptive practices? This requires evidence that the platform made false or misleading claims about its services, or that it employed practices that violate a reasonable consumer’s expectations and judgment. Second, did those practices cause harm to the plaintiff? This requires medical or psychological evidence that the plaintiff suffered actual injury—such as diagnosed anxiety, depression, sleep disorder, or academic harm—that can be traced to the platform’s design. Third, are the defendants liable? If multiple platforms are involved (as in the LA case with both Meta and YouTube), the jury must determine which platform is responsible for which harms. Expert testimony plays a crucial role in these verdicts.
The plaintiff’s side typically presents neuroscientists, addiction specialists, and technology researchers who explain how social media platforms trigger dopamine responses in the brain, how algorithmic feeds can create slot-machine-like variable reward patterns that reinforce compulsive checking, and how platforms deliberately A/B-test features to maximize time spent. The defense presents their own experts who argue that platforms do not deliberately design for addiction, that users have agency and choice in their platform use, and that many factors beyond the platforms contribute to mental health issues in young people (including genetic predisposition, family dysfunction, school stress, and peer relationships). Juries must weigh these conflicting expert opinions, which is inherently difficult when the science is still emerging and reasonable experts disagree. The burden of proof in civil cases like these is “preponderance of the evidence”—meaning the plaintiff must show it is more likely than not that the defendants are responsible for the alleged harms. This is a lower bar than the criminal standard (“beyond a reasonable doubt”) but still requires convincing evidence. The Los Angeles jury’s difficulty in reaching a verdict suggests they may have found the evidence persuasive on some counts but not others, or that they disagreed about the strength of the evidence on a particular defendant.
What Should You Do if You Believe You Were Harmed by Social Media Addiction?
If you are a young person (or parent of a young person) who believes you or your child suffered documented mental health harm due to social media platform use, the recent verdicts suggest there may be legal options available. The first step is to gather documentation of your harm—medical records from therapists or counselors, school records showing academic decline, medical diagnoses of anxiety, depression, or sleep disorders, and a timeline of your social media platform use during the period when you noticed the harm. This documentation will be essential if you later decide to pursue a claim, as the platforms will argue that many factors beyond their design choices contribute to mental health issues. You should be cautious about any online services claiming to represent you in these lawsuits unless they are verified law firms with proper licensing and credentials.
Always seek legal representation from attorneys licensed in your state with a track record in consumer protection or product liability litigation. Contact state bar associations or the American Association for Justice to verify attorney credentials. Be wary of websites or services that promise quick settlements or guarantee specific outcomes—legitimate attorneys will discuss realistic timelines and potential outcomes based on the specific facts of your case. Many qualified attorneys work on a contingency fee basis in social media litigation, meaning they only collect fees if you win a settlement or verdict, which aligns their interests with yours.
What Is the Future of Social Media Addiction Litigation?
The Los Angeles jury deadlock and New Mexico verdict suggest that social media addiction litigation is entering a new phase. These cases were among the first wave of trials on this issue, and the varied outcomes indicate that courts and juries are still developing standards for how to evaluate these claims. Future cases will likely benefit from the precedent that juries are willing to find platforms liable, but will also face the challenge of navigating inconsistent verdicts across different jurisdictions and different judges’ evidentiary rulings. The outcomes may also influence legislative action.
Some states have already begun proposing laws that would restrict certain “dark pattern” design practices, require age-based restrictions on algorithmic feeds for young users, or mandate greater transparency about how platforms engage users. The California legislature, for example, has considered bills that would allow minors to sue platforms for damages caused by addictive features. As more verdicts like the New Mexico case accumulate, there may be increased pressure on platforms to voluntarily change their design practices to reduce liability risk, or on legislators to impose legal requirements for platform design in the name of consumer protection. Conversely, platform companies will likely challenge adverse verdicts on appeal and continue to argue that they are protected by Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, which shields platforms from liability for user-generated content (though these cases focus on platform design, not user content, which may affect the viability of that defense).