As of March 25, 2026, a jury in Los Angeles remains deadlocked on damages in a landmark case against Meta Platforms and YouTube, with the verdict still unknown and no resolution in sight. The case, brought by K.G.M., a 20-year-old from Chico, California, who alleges she was targeted by addictive social media practices during her youth, has been in jury deliberations since March 13, 2026—now stretching past two weeks without a consensus. Judge Carolyn B.
Kuhl is overseeing the trial as the jury struggles to agree on financial damages against at least one of the two tech giants, creating uncertainty for over 2,000 pending lawsuits that hinge on this verdict. However, the landscape shifted dramatically on March 24, 2026, when a jury in New Mexico delivered a stunning outcome in a separate child safety case: Meta was found liable on all counts and ordered to pay $375 million in damages for failing to warn users about platform dangers and failing to protect children from sexual predators. This verdict marks the first time Meta has been held accountable in a jury trial for these specific child safety violations.
Table of Contents
- What Is the Los Angeles Social Media Addiction Trial and Who Are the Parties?
- How Long Can Jury Deliberations Take, and What Does the Current Delay Signal?
- What Happens if the Jury Reaches a Deadlock or Cannot Agree?
- The New Mexico Child Safety Verdict: A Dramatic Contrast
- How Do These Trials Affect the 2,000+ Pending Lawsuits Against Meta and YouTube?
- What Evidence and Arguments Have Been Central to These Cases?
- What Comes Next in the Broader Social Media Litigation Landscape?
What Is the Los Angeles Social Media Addiction Trial and Who Are the Parties?
The Los Angeles case centers on allegations that Meta Platforms and YouTube engaged in intentional, deceptive practices designed to addict young users to their platforms. The plaintiff, K.G.M., was targeted during her formative years when she was particularly vulnerable to manipulative design features. The case does not rest on a single feature or decision by the companies; instead, it alleges a systematic pattern of “addictive practices”—including algorithmic feeds designed to maximize engagement, notifications timed to interrupt daily life, and features that encourage endless scrolling. These practices, the plaintiff argues, caused psychological harm and dependency during a critical developmental period.
Judge Carolyn B. Kuhl is presiding over the case, which has attracted significant media attention because it touches on a growing public concern: whether social media companies should bear legal responsibility for the mental health impact of their platforms on young users. Closing arguments concluded on March 12, 2026, and the jury began deliberations on March 13, 2026. The case is noteworthy because it addresses the question of whether tech companies knowingly designed features to be addictive, similar to how tobacco companies were held accountable in earlier litigation. Unlike product liability cases with clear physical harm, this case requires the jury to weigh psychological and behavioral evidence—a more complex legal and factual terrain.
How Long Can Jury Deliberations Take, and What Does the Current Delay Signal?
Jury deliberations in complex civil cases can last anywhere from a few hours to several weeks, depending on the number of defendants, the amount of evidence presented, and the jury’s ability to reach consensus. In a case like this one, with two major defendants and disputes over addictive design practices and appropriate damages, longer deliberations are not unusual. However, when deliberations extend beyond two weeks—as they have here—it typically signals that the jury is struggling with a core issue: in this case, how much money each company should pay if liability has been established.
The fact that the jury appears to be deadlocked on at least one defendant is a critical signal. This suggests the jury may have agreed on liability against one company but cannot reach consensus on damages against the other, or they disagree about whether one defendant should bear liability at all. In civil cases, the burden of proof is lower than in criminal cases (preponderance of the evidence, roughly 51% certainty rather than beyond reasonable doubt), yet the jury is still divided. This raises questions about whether the evidence presentation was sufficiently clear or whether reasonable jurors genuinely disagree on the merits—a risk that always exists in complex litigation involving rapidly evolving technology and subjective harm assessments.
What Happens if the Jury Reaches a Deadlock or Cannot Agree?
If the jury remains unable to reach a unanimous or majority verdict (depending on California’s rules for civil cases), Judge Kuhl faces a critical decision: she may declare a mistrial for the affected defendant. A mistrial does not mean the plaintiff loses; rather, it means the case could be retried from the beginning, which would require another jury to hear all the evidence again. This is an expensive, time-consuming outcome for both sides. A mistrial would likely delay resolution for months or years and could result in a completely different outcome depending on how a new jury responds to the same evidence.
For a plaintiff like K.G.M., a mistrial is a mixed outcome: while it keeps her case alive, it means no immediate victory and substantial additional legal costs and emotional toll. For the defendants, a mistrial on one count could be seen as a partial victory while still exposing them to future liability. For the broader litigation ecosystem, a mistrial would leave the 2,000+ pending lawsuits in legal limbo, as many of those cases are stayed (paused) pending the outcome of this bellwether trial. Judge Kuhl has the authority to encourage further deliberations or to accept a partial verdict if the jury can reach consensus on one defendant but not both. The judge’s next move will be closely watched by all parties and by the legal community tracking social media liability.
The New Mexico Child Safety Verdict: A Dramatic Contrast
Just one day before this deadlock situation in Los Angeles, a New Mexico jury delivered a decisive outcome in a separate case involving Meta: the company was found liable on all counts and ordered to pay $375 million in damages. This case focused on child safety violations—specifically, Meta’s failure to warn users about platform dangers and its failure to protect children from sexual predators. The verdict found Meta liable for both unfair and deceptive trade practices and unconscionable trade practices, two legal theories that have broader implications than the Los Angeles addiction case. The New Mexico verdict is historically significant because it marks the first time Meta has been held accountable in a jury trial for child safety failures of this magnitude.
While Meta faces regulatory investigations and settlements with the FTC, this is different: a jury of ordinary citizens, after hearing evidence, determined that Meta knowingly failed to protect children and acted in bad faith. The $375 million award sends a clear message about the financial stakes of child safety negligence. This verdict will likely influence the thinking of the Los Angeles jury, as it demonstrates that juries are willing to hold social media companies accountable. However, the Los Angeles case focuses on addiction and mental health, while the New Mexico case centered on direct predatory harm—a distinction that matters legally and factually.
How Do These Trials Affect the 2,000+ Pending Lawsuits Against Meta and YouTube?
Both the Los Angeles and New Mexico cases are “bellwether” trials—lead cases designed to test the strength of claims before larger numbers of similar lawsuits proceed. Over 2,000 lawsuits alleging social media addiction or child safety harms are pending, many of them consolidated in federal or state MDLs (multidistrict litigations) or stayed pending the outcome of key bellwether cases. The Los Angeles trial was particularly important because it would set a precedent for addiction claims; the New Mexico verdict already provides a roadmap for child safety claims. The delay in the Los Angeles verdict creates uncertainty for all pending addiction-related cases.
If K.G.M.’s case results in a mistrial, plaintiffs in similar cases face the daunting prospect of lengthy retrials. Conversely, if the jury reaches a verdict finding Meta and/or YouTube liable and awarding substantial damages, the settlement and plea bargaining landscape could shift dramatically. Defense counsel will use a jury verdict against them to pressure settlements in pending cases; plaintiff counsel will use a favorable verdict to strengthen their negotiating position. The New Mexico verdict already tips the scales in favor of plaintiffs, providing evidence that juries will hold tech companies financially accountable. However, if the Los Angeles jury deadlocks or returns a defense verdict, it will complicate the narrative and potentially embolden defendants to resist settlement demands in pending addiction-related cases.
What Evidence and Arguments Have Been Central to These Cases?
In the Los Angeles case, the evidence focused on Meta’s and YouTube’s internal design choices: how their algorithms prioritize engagement, how notifications are timed to maximize usage, how the infinite scroll feature prevents users from naturally stopping, and how A/B testing by the companies showed they deliberately enhanced features they knew would increase addictive engagement. Expert testimony from psychologists and neuroscientists addressed how these design features exploit vulnerabilities in adolescent brain development, particularly the reward pathways that make addiction more likely in young users. The defense argued that millions of users manage their social media consumption responsibly, that the plaintiff had agency in her choices, and that causation—linking specific design features to psychological harm—is too speculative.
In the New Mexico case, evidence of direct harm was more concrete: accounts of minors being groomed and sexually exploited on Meta’s platforms, testimony from law enforcement about predators using the platforms, and evidence that Meta’s safety tools were inadequate or disabled by users. Meta’s own internal research, in one memorable line of evidence, showed the company knew its platforms were causing harm to adolescents but chose not to implement strong protective measures. The jury found this evidence compelling enough to convict Meta on all counts. The difference in evidentiary clarity between the two cases—direct predatory harm versus systemic design-driven addiction—may explain why the New Mexico jury reached a swift verdict while the Los Angeles jury remains divided.
What Comes Next in the Broader Social Media Litigation Landscape?
The outcomes of these two trials will reverberate far beyond the immediate parties. If the Los Angeles jury eventually returns a verdict—whether for the plaintiff or defendants—it will influence how courts and juries evaluate addiction claims in future social media cases. A plaintiff victory could accelerate settlements across the pending 2,000+ cases; a defense victory might entrench defendants’ litigation strategies and reduce settlement use for plaintiffs. The New Mexico verdict, by contrast, has already set a precedent: juries will hold Meta accountable for child safety failures, and $375 million is a baseline for damages in such cases. Regulatory agencies and legislators are watching these trials closely.
The FTC, under renewed scrutiny of big tech, may use jury verdicts as evidence to support enforcement actions or proposed rules. State attorneys general may be emboldened to file their own cases. Internationally, regulators in Europe and other jurisdictions are also monitoring U.S. jury verdicts to inform their own enforcement strategies. These trials signal a potential turning point: the era of social media companies operating with near-total immunity from civil liability for harms to users may be ending. Whether that change comes through jury verdicts, legislation, regulation, or settlement agreements remains to be seen, but the momentum is clearly shifting.