As of March 25, 2026, a jury in Los Angeles is actively deliberating in a landmark trial against Meta and YouTube over allegedly intentional design features intended to addict young users to their platforms. The jury—comprising 12 members who have heard one month of testimony—has been deliberating since approximately March 21, 2026, and is now weighing evidence on damages after what appears to be an apparent finding of liability. Only nine of the 12 jurors need to agree for a civil verdict, which means the outcome could be determined within days. Meanwhile, a parallel case just reached a critical milestone: on March 24, 2026, a jury in New Mexico returned a historic verdict, finding Meta liable on all counts for engaging in unfair, deceptive, and unconscionable trade practices that violated state child safety laws, awarding $375 million in damages.
These two trials represent the first instances where Meta has been held accountable by a jury for child safety harms, and they are closely watched by the legal community and potential claimants across the country. The Los Angeles case focuses on whether Meta and YouTube intentionally created addictive features that harmed a young woman’s mental health, while the New Mexico verdict centers on Meta’s alleged failure to protect children from sexual predators and to warn users about known dangers. Together, these developments signal a shift in how courts are treating claims against major tech platforms, and they could pave the way for thousands of similar lawsuits.
Table of Contents
- What the Jury Deliberation Process Means for Platform Liability
- Timeline of Evidence Presented in the Los Angeles Trial
- The New Mexico Verdict—Meta’s First Jury Loss on Child Safety
- What a $375 Million Damages Award Signals About Future Litigation
- Why Ongoing Trials Set the Stage for Thousands of Similar Claims
- New Mexico Phase 2—Public Nuisance Claims and Remedial Programs
- What Comes Next for the Los Angeles Jury and Broader Litigation
What the Jury Deliberation Process Means for Platform Liability
Jury deliberation in civil litigation is the phase where jurors review evidence presented during trial and determine whether the defendant is liable and, if so, what damages should be awarded. In this Los Angeles case, the jury has moved past the liability phase—meaning they have apparently determined that meta and YouTube are responsible for harm—and are now focused on calculating an appropriate dollar amount as compensation. The fact that jurors have been deliberating for nearly a week suggests they are engaged in serious discussion about the scope of damages. In civil cases, jurors do not need to reach unanimous agreement; a nine-to-three majority is sufficient to return a verdict, which accelerates the process compared to criminal trials where unanimity is required.
The New Mexico verdict demonstrates what can happen when a jury finds evidence of intentional wrongdoing. That jury concluded that Meta willfully engaged in unfair, deceptive, and unconscionable trade practices—legal language that signals intentionality and knowledge of harm. The New Mexico jurors also found that Meta violated state law by failing to warn consumers about dangers and protect children from sexual predators on the platform. This is not a case where a jury determined Meta was merely negligent or that harm occurred by accident; the verdict language points to deliberate design choices. The Los Angeles jury may be considering similar questions about intent and foreseeability of harm.
Timeline of Evidence Presented in the Los Angeles Trial
The Los Angeles trial lasted approximately one month, during which plaintiffs’ attorneys presented evidence that Meta and YouTube intentionally designed features to maximize user engagement and time spent on the platforms, with knowledge that such features could harm young users’ mental health. The trial included testimony from product designers, former employees, internal company documents, and mental health experts who explained the link between excessive social media use and depression, anxiety, and other psychological disorders in adolescents. The defendants presented their own evidence and arguments, likely emphasizing user choice, parental controls, and features designed to promote well-being. A critical aspect of the trial appears to have involved internal Meta and YouTube communications and research.
Both platforms have conducted internal studies on the mental health impacts of their products; plaintiffs likely presented evidence of what companies knew and when they knew it. This mirrors the New Mexico case, where similar internal documents and expert testimony regarding child safety risks were presented. The one-month timeline suggests a substantial amount of evidence on both sides, which explains why jurors in Los Angeles are now taking time to carefully weigh it all. Once deliberations conclude, the jury will issue a verdict specifying liability findings and, if liable, the damages amount.
The New Mexico Verdict—Meta’s First Jury Loss on Child Safety
On March 24, 2026, a New Mexico jury reached a verdict in a case focused explicitly on child safety and Meta’s trade practices. The jury found Meta liable on all counts, determining that the company engaged in unfair, deceptive, and unconscionable trade practices in violation of New Mexico consumer protection law, and that Meta violated the state’s specific child safety laws. The jury awarded $375 million in damages—a significant sum that signals jurors believed Meta’s conduct was serious and warranted substantial penalty. Meta’s response was to state respectfully that it disagrees with the verdict and plans to appeal, a move expected in high-stakes cases but one that suggests a protracted legal process ahead.
What makes the New Mexico verdict historically significant is that it is the first time a jury has found Meta liable in a civil trial specifically for child safety violations and trade practice violations. Earlier settlements and verdicts have addressed other issues (privacy, antitrust, labor practices), but child safety was the core claim here. The jury apparently found sufficient evidence that Meta failed to warn users about known risks, failed to protect children from sexual predators on the platform, and that these failures were conscious, deliberate omissions rather than mere negligence. This legal standard—demonstrating knowledge and deliberate inaction—is the same high bar that plaintiffs’ attorneys in the Los Angeles case are attempting to clear with the current jury.
What a $375 Million Damages Award Signals About Future Litigation
The $375 million New Mexico verdict is substantial, but it is important to understand what it represents in context. This is a state-level verdict in a single trial, not a nationwide class action settlement. However, it establishes a precedent: a jury found Meta liable for child safety harms and was willing to award significant damages. This precedent can influence settlements and other jury trials across the country. When potential claimants or their attorneys are considering whether to pursue litigation against Meta, they can point to the New Mexico verdict as evidence that juries do find merit in these claims and will award substantial damages.
However, it is critical to recognize that jury verdicts are not automatic outcomes. While the New Mexico verdict shows that juries can and will hold Meta accountable, the Los Angeles jury could reach a different conclusion on different evidence, or award damages at a different level. Jury composition, specific evidence presented, state law variations, and jury instructions all influence outcomes. The $375 million figure reflects New Mexico jurors’ assessment of harm in that specific case; a Los Angeles jury might award more, less, or the same amount depending on the facts presented to them. Additionally, Meta’s appeal of the New Mexico verdict means the case is far from final—appellate courts can overturn verdicts, reduce damages, or order a new trial, a process that typically takes years.
Why Ongoing Trials Set the Stage for Thousands of Similar Claims
The Los Angeles and New Mexico trials are often described as “test cases” or “bellwether” cases in litigation communities. This means that the outcomes influence how attorneys evaluate similar claims and how potential claimants assess whether it is worth pursuing legal action. If the Los Angeles jury returns a significant damages award against Meta and YouTube, attorneys across the country may file additional lawsuits on behalf of other young people who claim harm from social media use. Conversely, if the jury finds for the defendants or awards minimal damages, the appetite for new litigation may diminish.
This is why both trials are being watched closely by the legal community and by journalists covering technology and consumer protection issues. It is important to understand one key limitation: neither the Los Angeles verdict nor the New Mexico verdict, when final, will automatically entitle other people to compensation. Each lawsuit is separate. However, a significant jury verdict in favor of claimants does two things: (1) it demonstrates that the legal theory—that platforms intentionally designed addictive features and failed to protect children—has jury appeal, and (2) it can pressure defendants toward settlement in other cases, because companies seek to avoid the risk of large jury verdicts. If Meta loses in Los Angeles and the jury awards substantial damages, Meta’s legal team may be more inclined to settle pending or future claims rather than risk additional jury trials.
New Mexico Phase 2—Public Nuisance Claims and Remedial Programs
The New Mexico case is not over. The verdict addresses Meta’s liability for unfair/deceptive trade practices and child safety law violations, but the case proceeds to a second phase beginning May 4, 2026. In Phase 2, the court will hear arguments on whether Meta created a “public nuisance”—a legal concept meaning that Meta’s conduct harmed the public broadly, not just individual users. If the judge finds a public nuisance, the court could order Meta to fund programs aimed at addressing the harms created by the platform, such as mental health resources for young users, educational programs about social media risks, or technology designed to limit engagement for minors.
This remedial phase is significant because it moves beyond compensating individual harmed users to addressing systemic change. A public nuisance finding could require Meta to invest in solutions—perhaps modified algorithms for young users, age verification systems, or mental health resources—as an ongoing obligation. This is different from a damages award, which is a one-time payment. Depending on how Phase 2 unfolds, Meta could face both the $375 million damages award and ongoing operational or funding obligations, making the total cost of the verdict substantially larger.
What Comes Next for the Los Angeles Jury and Broader Litigation
The Los Angeles jury is expected to return a verdict within the coming days or weeks. Once that verdict is issued, the case will enter post-trial phases, where attorneys on both sides may file motions challenging the verdict or requesting a new trial, before the case likely proceeds to appeal. If the jury awards damages, Meta will appeal, potentially arguing that the verdict is unsupported by evidence or that damages are excessive. If Meta prevails, plaintiffs’ attorneys may appeal on the grounds that the judge made errors in how the case was presented to the jury. This appellate process typically takes one to three years, during which the original verdict remains under review but not yet final.
Beyond the Los Angeles case, the legal landscape for social media litigation is evolving. Other jurisdictions may bring similar cases, and additional lawsuits from individual young people or their families alleging harm from Meta, YouTube, TikTok, and other platforms are being filed or are in the pipeline. The outcomes of the Los Angeles and New Mexico cases will significantly influence how these cases are litigated, settled, or abandoned. Additionally, regulatory bodies and state attorneys general are increasingly investigating social media platforms’ impacts on child mental health and safety, which could lead to legislative or enforcement action independent of civil litigation. The convergence of jury verdicts, ongoing litigation, and regulatory scrutiny suggests that 2026 and beyond will be consequential years for accountability in social media.