After eight days of deliberations, the jury in the landmark Los Angeles social media addiction trial remains deadlocked as of March 25, 2026, unable to reach consensus on whether Meta and YouTube engaged in “engineered addiction” practices that harmed a 20-year-old plaintiff. Judge Carolyn B. Kuhl has instructed the jury to continue deliberations despite their reported difficulty in reaching agreement, with the understanding that a mistrial could force at least a partial retrial of the case if consensus cannot be achieved.
This standoff comes just one day after a New Mexico jury reached the opposite conclusion, finding Meta liable on all counts and awarding $375 million in damages for similar allegations involving child mental health and safety harms. The Los Angeles case represents the first of hundreds of pending social media addiction lawsuits to reach a jury verdict—a “bellwether” proceeding designed to establish legal precedent that will shape settlement negotiations and future litigation across the country. For plaintiffs pursuing claims against Meta, YouTube, TikTok, Snap, and other platforms, the outcome of this jury deliberation will determine whether courts are willing to hold these companies accountable for psychological manipulation and addiction-inducing design practices.
Table of Contents
- What Does a Jury Deadlock Mean in This Landmark Case?
- The Judge’s Warning and What Happens If the Jury Cannot Agree
- What Are the Jury Deciding? The “Engineered Addiction” Claims
- The New Mexico Verdict: A Contrasting Signal from the Same Wave of Litigation
- Timeline and Current Status of Jury Deliberations
- How Earlier Settlements Set the Stage for This Trial
- What This Case Means for the Wave of Pending Social Media Litigation
What Does a Jury Deadlock Mean in This Landmark Case?
A jury deadlock—also called a “hung jury”—occurs when jurors cannot reach unanimous agreement on liability or damages. In the Los Angeles trial involving plaintiff K.G.M., the jury’s difficulty in reaching consensus suggests fundamental disagreement about whether Meta and YouTube’s design practices constitute actionable harm under California law. Some jurors may believe the plaintiff proved the companies deliberately engineered addictive features, while others may question whether addiction claims qualify as valid legal injuries or whether individual responsibility plays a role in social media use.
Judge Kuhl’s instruction for the jury to continue deliberating is standard practice—judges typically urge holdout jurors to reconsider their positions and listen to opposing viewpoints before declaring a mistrial. However, her explicit warning that the case “would have to be at least partially retried” if the jury deadlocks underscores the consequences of this standoff. A retrial would mean months of additional litigation, cost, and uncertainty for both the plaintiff and defendants. This pressure to reach consensus makes the jury’s continued inability to agree particularly significant—it suggests the disagreement runs deep.
The Judge’s Warning and What Happens If the Jury Cannot Agree
Judge Carolyn B. Kuhl’s statement that a mistrial would require “at least partially retrying” the case is crucial. If the jury fully deadlocks, California law requires either a new trial with a different jury or a settlement between the parties—there is no middle ground where a partial verdict stands. This means all eight days of jury deliberations could be discarded, and both sides would start from scratch.
However, a partial retrial is also possible: jurors might agree on liability for meta but deadlock on YouTube’s liability, or vice versa, requiring only one defendant to face a new trial. The risk of retrial creates pressure on both sides to negotiate rather than push for an all-or-nothing jury decision. For Meta and YouTube, a retrial means more legal fees, public exposure, and the possibility of a different jury reaching a guilty verdict. For the plaintiff, a mistrial offers no compensation and requires another grueling trial process. This dynamic often drives settlement discussions once jurors signal they’re struggling—though as of March 25, no settlement has been announced.
What Are the Jury Deciding? The “Engineered Addiction” Claims
The jury is weighing allegations that Meta and YouTube deliberately designed their platforms to maximize user engagement through addictive mechanics—infinite scroll, algorithmic feeds that prioritize emotionally provocative content, notifications, and variable reward systems modeled on slot machines. Plaintiff K.G.M., a 20-year-old from Chico, alleges that these features caused her mental health harms, including anxiety, depression, and compulsive use patterns she couldn’t control.
This claim goes beyond simply arguing that social media is “bad for you”—it asserts that the companies knowingly hid evidence of psychological risks, particularly for younger users, and actively designed features to maximize addictiveness. The jury must determine whether Meta and YouTube’s business practices cross the line from “engaging design” to “deceptive and manipulative conduct” under California consumer protection laws. A guilty verdict would establish that companies have legal liability when design practices demonstrably harm psychological health, not just when they deceive users about product ingredients or safety.
The New Mexico Verdict: A Contrasting Signal from the Same Wave of Litigation
One day before the Los Angeles jury reported difficulty, a New Mexico jury reached a very different conclusion. On March 24, 2026, jurors found Meta liable on all counts—both for unfair trade practices and unconscionable business conduct—and awarded $375 million in damages. The New Mexico case focused on Meta’s failure to disclose knowledge about child sexual exploitation risks on its platforms and the psychological harms to minors. The jury essentially concluded that Meta knew about these dangers and hid them from consumers and regulators.
The contrast between the New Mexico verdict and the Los Angeles jury deadlock is striking. Both cases allege that Meta knowingly caused psychological harm to young users; both rely on similar evidence of internal company documents about risks. Yet one jury convicted Meta unanimously on all counts while the other remains unable to decide after eight days. This difference suggests that jury composition, specific legal theories, judge instructions, and presentation of evidence matter enormously. Some legal experts interpret the New Mexico win as validation that these claims can succeed, while others caution that verdicts vary by jurisdiction and that the Los Angeles jury’s hesitation reflects genuine legal ambiguity.
Timeline and Current Status of Jury Deliberations
Jury deliberations began on March 13, 2026, after nearly six weeks of trial testimony. The jury has been deliberating for eight days as of March 25, 2026—a substantial length indicating complexity and disagreement rather than straightforward consensus. In civil cases like this one, jurors do not need unanimity on every issue; California law requires only a majority vote on most questions.
However, if the jury cannot reach even a majority on core liability questions, the judge may declare a mistrial. The jury’s request for additional instructions or evidence from the trial record suggests they are actively engaged but struggling with specific legal standards. Judge Kuhl’s continued directive for them to deliberate indicates she believes consensus is still achievable, but the window is finite. If deliberations extend much further—typically beyond 10-14 days in civil cases—judges often declare mistrials to avoid perpetual deadlock.
How Earlier Settlements Set the Stage for This Trial
Before K.G.M.’s case proceeded to trial, TikTok and Snap reached significant pre-trial settlements in related social media addiction litigation. These settlements did not require the companies to admit wrongdoing but demonstrated willingness to pay substantial sums to avoid the risk of a jury trial. Meta and YouTube chose to defend the case rather than settle, betting that a jury would reject addiction liability claims or award lower damages.
The New Mexico verdict suggesting Meta is liable, combined with the Los Angeles jury’s continued inability to decide, indicates that Meta’s decision to go to trial was strategically risky. The settlement precedent set by TikTok and Snap influences how future cases are valued. Plaintiffs in pending cases now have evidence that companies will pay millions to avoid litigation, whereas previously there was no established damages baseline for social media addiction claims. If the Los Angeles jury deadlocks, the lack of a verdict could reduce settlement use for other plaintiffs, since defendants would argue that juries are uncertain about liability.
What This Case Means for the Wave of Pending Social Media Litigation
Hundreds of similar lawsuits against Meta, YouTube, TikTok, Snap, and other platforms are pending across federal and state courts. The Los Angeles case was designated a “bellwether” precisely because its verdict would establish legal and factual precedent for all subsequent cases. If the jury convicts Meta and YouTube, other plaintiffs’ lawyers gain a tested legal strategy and proof that juries believe addiction claims. If the jury acquits, defendants gain ammunition to argue similar cases lack merit.
A deadlock creates ambiguity—defendants can argue the jury split was reasoned skepticism, while plaintiffs can argue the jury was nearly convinced. Legal experts predict that regardless of the Los Angeles outcome, settlement discussions will accelerate over the next 18 months. The existence of the New Mexico verdict ($375 million for similar claims) provides a reference point, and pending cases will likely be valued in relation to that precedent. Future trials will also be shaped by evidence and legal arguments that worked or failed in Los Angeles and New Mexico, making these early cases the template for an entire category of litigation.