As of March 25, 2026, the jury in the landmark Los Angeles social media addiction trial remains deadlocked on at least one defendant—signaling that Meta and YouTube may face a partial retrial rather than a complete verdict. According to NBC Los Angeles reporting, jurors have signaled potential deadlock concerns as of March 23-24, with Judge Carolyn B. Kuhl explicitly stating that if the jury cannot reach unanimous agreement on any defendant, a retrial on that count would be required.
This means the case hangs in an uncertain position: weeks of testimony about whether Instagram, Facebook, and YouTube deliberately engineered addiction in young users could result in no final judgment at all. The trial centers on K.G.M., a 20-year-old woman from Chico, California, who alleges that Meta and YouTube subjected her to systematic “engineered addiction” practices during her youth, causing severe mental health harms. The case has already been partially resolved—TikTok and Snap settled and exited the trial before it even began—making the jury’s struggle to reach consensus on Meta and YouTube particularly significant.
Table of Contents
- What Does a Jury Deadlock Mean in the Meta and YouTube Addiction Trial?
- The Central Question the Jury Must Answer
- The Parallel New Mexico Victory Against Meta
- Why TikTok and Snap Exited Before Trial
- What Happens If the Jury Deadlocks on Meta or YouTube?
- The Evidence Behind the “Engineered Addiction” Claim
- What This Deadlock Means for Future Social Media Litigation
What Does a Jury Deadlock Mean in the Meta and YouTube Addiction Trial?
A jury deadlock occurs when jurors cannot reach unanimous agreement on a verdict, typically because some believe the evidence supports liability while others do not. In this Los Angeles trial, the stakes are extraordinarily high: the jury must decide whether meta‘s platforms (Instagram and Facebook) and YouTube deliberately used addictive design features to trap young users, or whether the plaintiff’s mental health struggles stem from familial trauma and real-world stressors. Judge Kuhl’s ruling is clear—if the jury cannot agree unanimously on either Meta or YouTube, that defendant gets a mistrial on the counts where deadlock occurs, triggering an automatic retrial. This creates an unusual outcome scenario: the jury could find Meta liable but deadlock on YouTube, or vice versa. Each deadlocked defendant would face a new trial with a different jury, new witnesses, and all the associated costs and delays.
For comparison, consider that this trial has already consumed weeks of testimony about internal Meta documents, YouTube’s engagement algorithms, and expert testimony on child psychology and addiction mechanics. A partial retrial would restart that entire process for whichever defendant(s) the jury cannot decide on, likely extending litigation well into 2027 or beyond. The jury’s signals of potential deadlock came as they entered the later stages of deliberation, suggesting that consensus has proven elusive despite extensive jury instructions from Judge Kuhl. Neither side has publicly stated what specific issues divide the jury—whether it’s causation (did the platforms cause the harm), knowledge (did Meta and YouTube know their designs were addictive), or damages (how much compensation is appropriate). The continuing deliberations as of March 25 may still yield a verdict, or they may confirm the deadlock.
The Central Question the Jury Must Answer
At its core, the trial pits two competing narratives against each other. The plaintiff’s legal team argues that Meta and YouTube engaged in deliberate “engineered addiction” practices—designing their platforms with infinite scroll, algorithmic recommendation, notification systems, and social validation features specifically to maximize user engagement and time spent on the apps, knowing these designs would be particularly harmful to developing teenage brains. This argument relies on internal company documents showing Meta’s knowledge of Instagram’s harmful effects on teen mental health, particularly among girls struggling with body image. The defense counters that K.G.M.’s mental health struggles resulted from familial trauma and real-world stressors rather than platform use.
They may argue that millions of teenagers use social media without developing severe mental illness, and that correlation (using Instagram frequently, then developing depression) does not prove causation (Instagram caused the depression). This causation question is extremely difficult to prove in court—experts can testify about psychological principles and neurological effects of variable reward schedules, but isolating one factor among many in a teenager’s life requires sophisticated testimony and jury confidence in the evidence. However, Meta faces an additional challenge in this trial: transparency. The company’s internal documents—brought to light through discovery—show company executives discussing Instagram’s addictive properties and its measurable harms to teenage girls. When a jury sees explicit evidence that a corporation knew its product was psychologically harmful but continued the design practices anyway, the legal burden shifts considerably, even if causation remains disputed.
The Parallel New Mexico Victory Against Meta
While the Los Angeles jury deliberated, a separate jury in New Mexico reached a decisive verdict on March 24, 2026—finding Meta liable for all counts and ordering the company to pay $375 million in damages. This verdict is significant for multiple reasons and provides a data point on how juries in similar cases are evaluating Meta’s conduct. The New Mexico case also involved child exploitation and safety violations, but under state consumer protection law rather than addiction claims specifically. According to NBC News and CNBC reporting, the New Mexico jury found Meta engaged in “unfair and deceptive” and “unconscionable” trade practices.
The $375 million New Mexico judgment suggests that juries are increasingly willing to hold social media platforms accountable for the harms they knowingly inflict on young users. This precedent could influence settlement discussions, appeal strategies, and how other juries view Meta’s conduct. If the Los Angeles jury eventually convicts Meta as well, the company could face cumulative liability across multiple states—a scenario that might incentivize settlement rather than further litigation. Conversely, if the Los Angeles jury deadlocks, Meta’s legal team may argue that the New Mexico verdict is an outlier or that different state laws and evidence lead to different conclusions.
Why TikTok and Snap Exited Before Trial
Before this trial ever began, TikTok and Snap settled their cases and withdrew as defendants, leaving only Meta and YouTube at the table. This early exit is revealing: it suggests their legal liability exposure or settlement calculations differed from Meta and YouTube’s, or that their legal teams assessed the evidence as more damaging than their larger competitors believed. By settling, TikTok and Snap avoided the uncertainty of jury verdict and the public scrutiny of trial testimony about their internal practices.
The exact settlement amounts with TikTok and Snap have not been widely publicized in the sources provided, but the decision to settle rather than fight illustrates an important strategic divergence. Meta and YouTube chose to proceed to trial, either believing they could persuade the jury or willing to accept the reputational and financial risk of a public judgment. This confidence (or stubbornness, depending on perspective) has now resulted in a jury deadlock that offers neither victory nor closure, leaving all parties in limbo.
What Happens If the Jury Deadlocks on Meta or YouTube?
If the jury confirms deadlock, Judge Kuhl will declare a mistrial on the counts where consensus was impossible. The case would then proceed to a retrial phase, meaning new discovery, new jury selection, and new trial dates. This process typically takes 12-18 months, adding significant legal costs and extending Meta and YouTube’s exposure to liability. The companies might face retrials in 2027 or 2028, with no guarantee the outcome will be different—a subsequent jury might convict them or might deadlock again. Alternatively, a deadlock often creates pressure for settlement.
Both plaintiffs and defendants may recognize that retrials are expensive, uncertain, and generate negative publicity. The $375 million New Mexico verdict provides a floor—a settlement in the Los Angeles case would likely need to exceed or match that amount to seem reasonable to the jury (if they’re ever told about it during settlement negotiations). Meta’s legal team might decide that settling avoids the risk of a larger judgment, while the plaintiff’s team might accept a guaranteed settlement rather than gamble on a retrial’s outcome. There is also a possibility that the jury eventually breaks the deadlock and reaches a unanimous verdict—either for the plaintiff (finding Meta and/or YouTube liable) or for the defendants (finding them not liable on all counts). Jury deliberations sometimes take weeks or months, and continued discussion can move holdouts. As of March 25, the jury was still deliberating, so a verdict remains possible.
The Evidence Behind the “Engineered Addiction” Claim
The trial presented evidence about how Meta and YouTube use infinite scroll, algorithmic recommendation feeds, and push notifications to maximize engagement. These features are designed to keep users on the platform by constantly providing new content, never giving users a natural stopping point. When a user scrolls to what appears to be the bottom of their feed, the algorithm fetches more content, starting another cycle of scrolling.
This design mimics variable reward schedules used in gambling—users never know when they’ll encounter entertaining content, so they keep scrolling. For teenagers, whose prefrontal cortexes (the brain region governing impulse control and long-term decision-making) are still developing, these mechanisms create particular vulnerability. The trial likely included testimony from neuroscientists explaining how adolescent brains respond to social validation signals (likes, comments) and how the dopamine release from social rewards can create genuine addictive patterns. The plaintiff’s experts would have argued that Meta and YouTube exploited this neurological reality while knowing the psychological consequences—as evidenced by their own internal documents discussing harms to teenage girls.
What This Deadlock Means for Future Social Media Litigation
The Los Angeles jury deadlock, while frustrating for the plaintiff, does not undermine the broader momentum of social media addiction litigation. The New Mexico verdict against Meta demonstrates that juries can and will hold platforms accountable. Also, state legislatures are increasingly passing laws restricting social media’s design practices for minors—laws that might make platforms like Instagram less addictive in the future, regardless of trial outcomes. The deadlock also reflects genuine complexity: causation in mental health is difficult to prove, and juries reasonably disagree on whether the evidence meets the legal standard.
This complexity cuts both ways. It might protect Meta and YouTube in some cases, but the mounting evidence of their knowledge and intent makes future litigation increasingly treacherous for the platforms. The company is now facing multiple jury trials on related claims, a $375 million judgment in New Mexico, and continued discovery of internal documents that illuminate their understanding of harms. Whether the Los Angeles jury eventually convicts or remains deadlocked, Meta’s reputation and legal exposure are substantial.