The jury in the landmark Meta and YouTube social media addiction trial in Los Angeles has not yet reached a verdict as of March 25, 2026. After signaling potential difficulty reaching consensus on at least one defendant, jurors resumed deliberations on Tuesday to continue weighing damages in a case that has already established liability against both platforms.
The jury’s struggle to reach unanimity has prompted Judge Carolyn B. Kuhl to warn that failure to achieve consensus could necessitate a partial retrial for the unnamed defendant, raising the stakes in what has become one of the most significant social media litigation cases in recent years. This article explains the current status of jury deliberations, what’s at stake, and what a potential deadlock could mean for consumers seeking compensation.
Table of Contents
- What Is the Meta and YouTube Trial About?
- Why Is the Jury Struggling to Reach a Verdict on Damages?
- What Damages Are Being Considered?
- What Happens if the Jury Cannot Agree?
- Context From the New Mexico Meta Trial
- What Does This Mean for Consumers and Potential Plaintiffs?
- What Comes Next?
What Is the Meta and YouTube Trial About?
The lawsuit centers on allegations that Meta and YouTube intentionally designed addictive features that caused documented harm to a young woman’s mental health. This is a landmark case because it directly challenges the business models of two of the world’s largest social media platforms, arguing that their engagement-maximizing algorithms and notification systems were deliberately created to exploit user psychology. Unlike many social media lawsuits that focus on data privacy or antitrust concerns, this case specifically addresses the addictive nature of platform features and their psychological impact on users.
The trial has already resulted in a finding of liability against both defendants, meaning the jury and court have determined that Meta and YouTube acted in ways that caused harm. This is a significant victory for the plaintiff and sets a legal precedent that social media companies can be held responsible for the addictive nature of their platforms. The remaining question is not whether the defendants are liable, but how much they must pay in damages—a determination that has proven difficult for the jury to agree upon.
Why Is the Jury Struggling to Reach a Verdict on Damages?
Jury deliberations in complex cases involving multiple defendants and significant financial damages can be contentious, as jurors must agree on both the amount and how to allocate responsibility between parties. In this case, jurors have reported difficulty reaching consensus on at least one defendant, suggesting disagreement about either the severity of harm or the appropriate financial remedy. This type of stalemate is not uncommon in cases involving large damage awards, where some jurors may believe the award should be higher while others argue for more conservative figures.
Judge Kuhl’s warning that a deadlock could necessitate a partial retrial for one defendant introduces additional complexity. A partial retrial would mean starting the deliberation process over for that defendant alone, which would extend the case timeline and require the jury to reconvene. However, if the jury can reach consensus, even on a reduced damages amount, it would likely resolve the case more quickly and avoid prolonged litigation. This pressure may motivate jurors to find common ground, though it also reflects the genuine difficulty of awarding damages in a case involving algorithmic harm.
What Damages Are Being Considered?
The jury is specifically weighing the amount of compensation the plaintiff should receive from Meta and YouTube for the documented harm to her mental health. This includes consideration of factors such as medical expenses, psychological treatment costs, lost productivity, and pain and suffering. The jury must also determine how to allocate damages between the two defendants if they believe both companies contributed to the harm.
While the specific damage amounts being debated by the jury have not been publicly disclosed, the case is understood to involve substantial sums given the gravity of the allegations and the platforms’ resources. The jury’s difficulty in reaching consensus suggests significant disagreement about what constitutes fair compensation for algorithmic harm to mental health—a relatively new area of legal precedent. This deliberation process will help establish the financial liability baseline for future social media addiction cases.
What Happens if the Jury Cannot Agree?
If the jury remains deadlocked and cannot reach a verdict, Judge Kuhl has indicated that a mistrial could be declared, potentially leading to a partial retrial for the defendant on which consensus could not be reached. This would reset the deliberation process for that specific defendant while maintaining the liability verdict already established. A new jury would then be impaneled to deliberate solely on damages for the defendant in question, while any damages verdict reached for the other defendant would stand.
A retrial scenario would be costly and time-consuming for all parties involved, including the court system. However, it is the legally required outcome if jurors genuinely cannot reach the unanimous or supermajority verdict required in their jurisdiction. The alternative—allowing a partial jury to decide damages—would violate the defendant’s right to a full jury verdict, which judges take seriously. This is why Judge Kuhl’s warning may serve as motivation for jurors to continue deliberating and seek compromise where possible.
Context From the New Mexico Meta Trial
While the Los Angeles jury continues deliberating, a separate Meta trial in New Mexico reached a verdict on March 24, 2026, with a jury finding Meta liable on all counts for violating New Mexico’s unfair and deceptive trade practices law. The jury awarded $375 million in damages, providing a reference point for the scale of liability social media companies now face in state court proceedings. The New Mexico verdict demonstrates that juries across different jurisdictions are willing to hold Meta accountable for practices deemed deceptive or unfair.
However, the New Mexico case involved different legal claims and a different jury, so the damages awarded there may not directly predict the outcome in the Los Angeles social media addiction case. Each jury weights evidence differently, and the specific damages calculations depend on the evidence presented and the jurisdiction’s legal standards. The New Mexico verdict does show, though, that major financial judgments against Meta are achievable in modern litigation.
What Does This Mean for Consumers and Potential Plaintiffs?
The continuation of jury deliberations in this case signals that courts are taking social media addiction seriously as a basis for legal liability. If a substantial damages award is reached—whether in the current deliberation or after a potential retrial—it could open the door to similar lawsuits against Meta, YouTube, TikTok, and other platforms. Consumers who have experienced documented mental health harms from social media use may find it easier to file claims or participate in class actions if a precedent for liability is firmly established.
For individuals currently affected by social media use and mental health issues, it is important to document the connection between platform use and any psychological symptoms. Medical records, therapy notes, and personal journals can serve as evidence in future cases. Additionally, consumers should monitor settlements or class action opportunities that may emerge from either the current case or similar lawsuits, as these often offer compensation without requiring individual litigation.
What Comes Next?
The immediate question is whether the jury will reach consensus in the coming days. If they do, the verdict will likely be appealed by the defendant(s), potentially extending the legal process for months or years. If a mistrial is declared on one defendant, a new trial date will be set, and the process will begin again for that party.
Either way, this case is expected to be appealed to higher courts, which will review both the liability verdict and any damages award. Beyond the immediate legal proceedings, this case is likely to influence how other courts and juries view social media platform liability. Future cases will cite the findings and arguments made here, and the damages awarded—whatever they are—will become a benchmark for similar lawsuits. Regulatory scrutiny of social media platforms is also likely to intensify, particularly regarding the design of addictive features and their impact on young users.