Juries are actively considering major claims against Meta and Google right now, and at least one verdict has already been reached. On March 24, 2026, a New Mexico jury found Meta liable on all counts in a child safety case, ordering the company to pay $375 million in damages for failing to warn users about dangers and for not adequately protecting children from sexual predators.
Meanwhile, in Los Angeles, a jury is currently deliberating in a separate bellwether trial involving over 2,000 pending lawsuits against both Meta and Google, where a 20-year-old woman is alleging that platform addiction led to severe depression and suicidal ideation. These cases represent some of the first major jury verdicts holding social media platforms directly accountable for harms to users—and the outcomes will likely ripple across thousands of other pending claims nationwide.
Table of Contents
- What Are the Current Jury Cases Against Meta and Google Platforms?
- The New Mexico Verdict—What Meta Was Found Liable For
- The Los Angeles Trial—What’s at Stake in the Social Media Addiction Case
- How Child Safety and Mental Health Claims Differ in These Cases
- Why the LA Jury’s Difficulty Reaching Consensus Matters
- What Evidence Has Been Presented in These Trials
- What Happens Next and the Broader Implications
What Are the Current Jury Cases Against Meta and Google Platforms?
Two major jury cases are currently in motion against the social media giants. The first is in New Mexico, where the verdict just came in: a jury found meta liable for unfair, deceptive, and unconscionable trade practices related to child safety. This was the first jury trial verdict specifically holding Meta accountable for these issues, making it a historic moment in platform accountability litigation. The second case is happening right now in Los Angeles.
It’s a bellwether trial, which means it’s serving as a test case for over 2,000 pending lawsuits with similar claims. In this trial, a 20-year-old woman identified in court documents as Kaley or KGM is suing both Meta (Facebook and Instagram) and Google (YouTube) for allegedly making their platforms deliberately addictive in ways that caused her severe depression and suicidal ideation. The trial began in early February 2026, closing arguments wrapped up in mid-March, and the jury is currently deliberating. Unlike the New Mexico case, which has already yielded a verdict, this LA jury is still weighing the evidence—and legal experts say the jury appears divided, with difficulty reaching consensus on at least one defendant. Notably, Snapchat and TikTok settled their portions of the LA case before trial even started, which means the jury’s decision will focus solely on Meta and Google’s conduct.
The New Mexico Verdict—What Meta Was Found Liable For
The March 24, 2026 verdict in New Mexico represents a watershed moment: a jury determined that Meta violated state law by failing to adequately warn users about dangers and by not protecting children from sexual predators on its platforms. The jury found Meta liable on all counts for unfair and deceptive trade practices, as well as for unconscionable conduct. The damages award was $375 million. What’s significant here is not just the dollar amount, but what the jury concluded Meta did wrong. The case centers on child sexual exploitation—meaning predators used Meta’s platforms (Facebook and Instagram) to target, groom, and exploit minors.
The jury decided Meta knew about these dangers, or should have known, but failed to warn users and failed to put adequate safeguards in place. This is different from other litigation against Meta, where plaintiffs argue the platforms are addictive or cause mental health harm. In New Mexico, the jury was evaluating whether Meta had a responsibility to protect children from predatory behavior and whether the company breached that responsibility. However, this verdict applies specifically to New Mexico law and the specific claims brought in that case. Other states have different consumer protection laws, and other juries may evaluate similar facts differently. That said, the New Mexico verdict does provide a roadmap for other child safety claims—it shows that juries are willing to hold platforms accountable for failing to protect minors from exploitation.
The Los Angeles Trial—What’s at Stake in the Social Media Addiction Case
The Los Angeles case is fundamentally different from the New Mexico case because it’s focused on mental health and platform addiction, not predatory behavior. A 20-year-old woman is alleging that Meta’s Facebook and Instagram, along with Google’s YouTube, were deliberately designed to be addictive. She claims this addiction led to severe depression and suicidal ideation. If she wins, it would establish that platforms can be held liable for mental health harms caused by addictive design practices. The stakes are enormous: over 2,000 lawsuits with similar claims are waiting for this verdict. If the jury rules in favor of the plaintiff, those 2,000+ cases become much stronger and more likely to settle or go to trial successfully.
If the jury rules for Meta and Google, it could derail many of those pending claims. The trial began in early February 2026, so the evidence presented has been recent and substantial. Closing arguments were delivered in mid-March, and deliberations are ongoing as of late March 2026. One important limitation to understand: even if the jury rules for the plaintiff in LA, it doesn’t automatically apply to all the other 2,000+ cases. Each case is different—different plaintiffs, different platforms sometimes, different state laws. But the verdict would create strong precedent and would likely lead to settlement discussions in many of those pending cases. Conversely, if the jury rules for Meta and Google, plaintiffs’ attorneys would need to reassess their strategies in the pending cases.
How Child Safety and Mental Health Claims Differ in These Cases
The New Mexico verdict and the LA trial represent two distinct legal theories. Understanding the difference is important because it shows how many different angles regulators, plaintiffs, and juries are attacking platform accountability from. The New Mexico case is about child sexual exploitation—predatory behavior enabled by the platform. The claim is that Meta knew (or should have known) that sexual predators were using its platforms to target minors, and the company failed to warn users or implement adequate protections. This is somewhat analogous to premises liability cases where a business is held responsible for foreseeable criminal acts that occur on its property. The jury concluded Meta had a duty and breached it.
The LA case, by contrast, is about the platforms’ own design choices. The plaintiff is arguing that Meta and Google deliberately engineered their algorithms, notification systems, and features to maximize engagement and time-on-platform, knowing this would hook users—especially young users—into compulsive use. This is more analogous to cases against cigarette or gambling companies where the product itself (not third-party misuse) is argued to be inherently harmful. A verdict in favor of the plaintiff would mean juries believe platforms can be held liable for the harms of their own addictive design, not just for failing to prevent third-party abuse. Both theories could apply to the same company simultaneously, which means Meta (and Google, in the LA case) could face liability on multiple fronts. This is one reason why the outcomes of these trials matter so much—they’re establishing which types of claims have legal merit.
Why the LA Jury’s Difficulty Reaching Consensus Matters
By mid-March 2026, reports indicated the LA jury was divided, with apparent difficulty reaching consensus on at least one of the two defendants. This is significant and tells us something important: the evidence in the addiction case is not a slam dunk for either side. When a jury becomes deadlocked or appears divided during deliberations, it usually means the evidence is mixed, the legal standards are hard to apply, or jurors genuinely disagree about how serious the harm was or whether the defendant’s conduct was the real cause.
In the LA case, it’s possible that some jurors find Meta’s conduct egregious but are less convinced about Google’s conduct (or vice versa). It’s also possible that some jurors believe the platforms are addictive but don’t believe that should be illegal or compensable. The jury may be struggling with causation—did the platform’s design actually cause the plaintiff’s depression and suicidal ideation, or were other factors at play? A divided jury can lead to a mistrial (if jurors cannot reach unanimity and the judge requires it), a hung jury (in some jurisdictions), or a verdict on some counts but not others. Any of these outcomes would be different from a clean verdict in favor of either the plaintiff or the defendants, and would send a mixed signal to the thousands of other pending cases.
What Evidence Has Been Presented in These Trials
In the LA trial, the plaintiff’s evidence likely included expert testimony on how social media algorithms work, internal Meta and Google documents about engagement metrics, testimony from the young woman about her own experience with the platforms, and possibly medical or psychiatric evidence about her mental health decline. The defendants’ evidence presumably countered that other factors (like family issues, peer relationships, or genetic predisposition) could explain her depression, and that using social media is a choice users make voluntarily. In the New Mexico case, the evidence centered on Meta’s knowledge of child exploitation.
This probably included reports from child safety organizations, internal Meta communications about known risks, user complaints that Meta received and didn’t act on, and testimony from experts on how predators use platforms. The jury found this evidence compelling enough to hold Meta liable on all counts. Both trials have produced a detailed public record of how these platforms operate, what they knew about their products’ effects, and what safeguards (or lack thereof) they had in place. This evidence, now public, will likely inform other pending litigation.
What Happens Next and the Broader Implications
The immediate question is: what will the LA jury decide, and will they reach unanimity? If they do reach a verdict, expect immediate appeals from whichever side loses. These cases will likely go through the appellate system for years. However, even during that appeals process, the verdict itself will pressure the defendants and plaintiffs’ attorneys to negotiate settlements in the thousands of other pending cases. Beyond these two specific trials, the broader implication is clear: juries are now actively evaluating whether social media platforms can be held liable for harms.
The New Mexico verdict shows juries will find platforms liable for failing to protect children from exploitation. The LA trial is testing whether juries will find them liable for addictive design. If even some of these trials continue to go plaintiffs’ way, it will reshape how platforms operate—potentially leading to changes in algorithm design, safety features, and how platforms market themselves to young users. Neither trial is the end of this litigation; both are the beginning of a much larger reckoning with social media’s role in public health.
You Might Also Like
- Jury Still Considering Evidence in Landmark Meta and YouTube Trial
- No Verdict Yet in Trial That Could Influence Future Claims Against Meta
- Meta and YouTube Trial Outcome Still Unknown as Jury Delays Verdict
Open Settlements You Can Claim Now
Browse current class action settlements accepting claims — several require no proof of purchase: