On Day 8 of jury deliberations in Los Angeles, the jury tasked with deciding whether Meta and Google-owned YouTube bear responsibility for a young woman’s social media addiction is struggling to reach consensus. Judge Carolyn B. Kuhl, presiding over the landmark trial at Spring Street Courthouse in downtown Los Angeles, has reinstructed the 12-member jury to continue deliberating after they reported difficulty coming to consensus, particularly regarding one of the two defendants.
The jury needs only 9 votes to reach a verdict in this civil case, but jurors have signaled they are having trouble aligning on liability. This case, which involves a 20-year-old plaintiff identified as “Kaley GM” who claims depression, anxiety, body dysmorphia, self-harm, and suicidal thoughts stemming from platform addiction starting at ages 6 and 9 respectively, represents one of only three bellwether cases selected to potentially set legal precedent for thousands of similar lawsuits against social media companies. The deliberation impasse underscores the complexity of proving causation between platform design and mental health harm—and highlights the significant risk that the case could result in a partial retrial if jurors cannot reach agreement on one defendant.
Table of Contents
- What Evidence Has the Jury Been Reviewing During Deliberations?
- Who is the Plaintiff and What Mental Health Claims Are Central to This Case?
- What Are Meta and YouTube’s Core Defense Arguments?
- What is the Current Status of Jury Deliberations, and What Has the Judge Done?
- What Happens if the Jury Deadlocks on One or Both Defendants?
- How Does This Case Connect to the Recent Meta Verdict in New Mexico?
- What Makes This a Bellwether Case, and What’s the Timeline for Resolution?
- Frequently Asked Questions
What Evidence Has the Jury Been Reviewing During Deliberations?
Throughout approximately six weeks of testimony that concluded before closing arguments on March 12, 2026, jurors heard evidence centered on two primary categories: internal company documents and platform design practices. meta and YouTube’s own internal documents have been presented as evidence that the companies understood their platforms contained addictive features—specifically infinite scroll, autoplay functionality, and beauty filters designed to maximize user engagement and time spent on the applications. These documents allegedly show that engineers and product managers within both companies were aware of the addictive mechanisms they were implementing.
Conversely, the defense presented audio recordings of conversations between the plaintiff and her mother that attorneys argue demonstrate pre-existing mental health struggles independent of social media use. This evidence represents a fundamental strategy by Meta and YouTube: establishing that the plaintiff’s depression, anxiety, and self-harm behaviors may have roots in factors separate from platform algorithms and design choices. For jurors trying to determine causation, this conflicting evidence has proven difficult to weigh—particularly the question of whether platform design was a primary cause of harm or merely a contributing factor to underlying vulnerabilities.
Who is the Plaintiff and What Mental Health Claims Are Central to This Case?
The plaintiff in this trial is a 20-year-old woman who began using YouTube at age 6 and Instagram at age 9, making her a user of Meta and Google platforms for virtually her entire conscious life. Her legal team argues that her prolonged exposure to these platforms during formative developmental years directly caused diagnosed depression, anxiety, body dysmorphia, self-harm behavior, and suicidal thoughts. The specificity of these mental health claims—ranging from persistent low mood to harmful self-injury—forms the basis of damages the plaintiff is seeking.
This case illustrates an important distinction that often confuses the public: the trial is not determining whether social media *can* correlate with mental health challenges in general populations, but whether *this specific plaintiff’s* diagnosed conditions were caused by *these specific platforms*. That requires jurors to evaluate causation under civil law standards, meaning the plaintiff’s legal team needed to show it was more likely than not that Meta’s and YouTube’s conduct directly contributed to her harm. The challenge intensifies because adolescent depression and anxiety have multiple known causes—genetic predisposition, family dynamics, peer relationships, academic pressure—none of which are addressed by simply limiting social media use.
What Are Meta and YouTube’s Core Defense Arguments?
Both defendants have employed a multi-layered defense strategy. First, they argue that social media platforms provide legitimate benefits: connection, community, creative expression, and access to information. Second, they dispute that their design features were intended to addict users or that they function differently from other engaging digital products like video games, television, or even books.
Third—and most significantly in the current deliberations—they contest causation by presenting evidence of the plaintiff’s pre-existing mental health challenges through recordings and testimony from people close to her. The defendants’ core position is that even if their platforms are engaging (which they don’t concede), engagement does not equal addiction or intentional harm. this mirrors arguments made successfully in prior tobacco and alcohol litigation, though with a crucial difference: unlike cigarettes, social media platforms are largely free, legally available to minors in many forms, and don’t carry the same regulatory warnings or age restrictions. The jury’s difficulty reaching consensus on at least one defendant may stem from this conceptual challenge: determining whether a company that creates an engaging product bears legal responsibility when a user suffers harm.
What is the Current Status of Jury Deliberations, and What Has the Judge Done?
As of March 25, 2026, the jury has been deliberating for eight days without reaching a verdict. On the eighth day of deliberations, jurors communicated to Judge Kuhl that they were experiencing difficulty coming to consensus, with the reported difficulty seemingly concentrated on reaching agreement regarding one of the two defendants. Rather than declare a mistrial immediately, Judge Kuhl issued what is known as an “Allen charge” or “dynamite charge”—a reinstructionto jurors emphasizing their obligations to continue deliberating and to consider the viewpoints of fellow jurors who may disagree with them.
This judicial intervention does not tell jurors how to vote, but rather encourages them to work through their disagreements in good faith. The judge’s action reflects a recognition that juries often need time and reinstatement of their civic duty before reaching difficult verdicts. However, Judge Kuhl also made clear the stakes: if the jury cannot reach unanimity on both defendants (remembering that only 9 of 12 votes are required), the case will need to be partially retried on whichever defendant the jury deadlocks, a costly and time-consuming outcome that neither side prefers.
What Happens if the Jury Deadlocks on One or Both Defendants?
If jurors cannot reach the required nine votes on either Meta or YouTube, the case will face a partial retrial specifically on the defendant in question. This doesn’t mean the entire six-week trial repeats, but it does mean a new jury will be selected, evidence will be presented again, and arguments will be made anew on that specific defendant’s liability. From a plaintiff’s perspective, a partial mistrial is costly because it resets progress on at least one defendant, requiring additional legal resources and time.
From the defendants’ perspective, it represents an opportunity to present their case to a fresh jury that might be more persuaded by their arguments. A complete mistrial (deadlock on both defendants) would be even more disruptive, though less likely given that jurors have apparently found it easier to reach consensus on one defendant than the other. The possibility of partial retrial also creates pressure on jurors to reach compromise verdicts that may not fully align with any juror’s true beliefs—a known dynamic in high-stakes jury deliberations where the burden of retrials weighs psychologically on jurors aware they have not reached closure.
How Does This Case Connect to the Recent Meta Verdict in New Mexico?
Just one day before the Los Angeles jury reported deliberation difficulties, on March 24, 2026, a separate jury in New Mexico reached a verdict holding Meta liable for $375 million in civil damages. That case focused specifically on child safety violations—Meta’s alleged failure to protect children from predators on Facebook and Instagram. While the New Mexico verdict involved different legal claims (predator protection versus addiction and mental health harm), it demonstrates that juries in different jurisdictions have shown willingness to hold Meta accountable for harms to young users, even when those harms stem from different mechanisms.
The $375 million award likely influences the Los Angeles deliberations, though Judge Kuhl’s jury instructions would have explicitly told jurors not to consider verdicts from other cases. Nonetheless, the fact that Meta has just lost a major case to a jury elsewhere reinforces the stakes and credibility of the social media liability argument more broadly. This timing creates an interesting dynamic: jurors in Los Angeles know that at least one other jury has concluded Meta behaves in ways that harm children, even if the specific harms and legal theories differ.
What Makes This a Bellwether Case, and What’s the Timeline for Resolution?
The Los Angeles trial is one of only three bellwether cases selected in the broader litigation against social media platforms for addiction and mental health harm. Bellwether cases serve as “test cases” that often establish legal precedent and settlement baselines for thousands of similar lawsuits awaiting resolution. If the jury here rules in favor of the plaintiff, it will likely accelerate settlement discussions and claims on behalf of other young users harmed during the same period.
Conversely, a defense verdict might lead to different settlement strategies or the dismissal of weaker cases in the larger litigation pool. The expected verdict timeline is spring or summer 2026, meaning a resolution should come within the next few months, depending on how quickly the jury reaches consensus and whether a partial retrial becomes necessary. The legal and public health communities are watching closely because the outcome will influence not only Meta and YouTube’s legal exposure but also potentially broader regulatory scrutiny of social media design practices targeting minors.
Frequently Asked Questions
How many jurors need to agree for a verdict in this case?
In this civil trial, only 9 of the 12 jurors need to agree. This is different from criminal trials, which typically require unanimous verdicts. The lower threshold theoretically makes agreement easier, yet the jury still reports difficulty reaching consensus.
What is a bellwether case, and why does it matter?
A bellwether case is a test case selected to help predict the outcome of similar lawsuits and establish legal precedent. This trial is one of three bellwether cases in social media addiction litigation affecting potentially thousands of other cases. A verdict here will likely influence settlements and legal strategy across the broader litigation.
What happens if the jury deadlocks on one defendant but not the other?
If jurors cannot reach nine votes on one defendant (say, Meta) but do reach nine votes on the other (YouTube), the case will be partially retried. A new jury would be selected to hear evidence and arguments specific to the defendant on which the original jury deadlocked.
What are the addictive design features at issue in this trial?
The key features discussed in testimony include infinite scroll (continuous content delivery without natural stopping points), autoplay (automatic progression to the next video without user action), and beauty filters that may contribute to body dysmorphia and social comparison.
Does the New Mexico verdict against Meta affect the Los Angeles jury’s decision?
Jurors are instructed not to consider other cases when reaching their verdict. However, the $375 million Meta liability finding in New Mexico (decided March 24, 2026, just before deliberations grew difficult) may influence public perception and the broader litigation landscape, even if not directly influencing this jury.
When can we expect a verdict in this case?
The expected timeline is spring or summer 2026. If the jury reaches consensus soon or after additional reinstructions, a verdict could come within weeks. If a partial mistrial is declared, a retrial on the disputed defendant would extend the timeline further.
You Might Also Like
- Social Media Addiction Trial Update: Jury Has Not Reached Verdict Yet
- Social Media Addiction Trial Continues Without Final Jury Decision
- Jury Still Out in High-Profile Social Media Addiction Lawsuit
Open Settlements You Can Claim Now
Browse current class action settlements accepting claims — several require no proof of purchase: