As of March 25, 2026, the jury in the landmark Los Angeles trial against Meta and YouTube remains deadlocked, with no verdict in sight. The case centers on whether Meta and YouTube deliberately engineered addictive features to harm the mental health of a young plaintiff identified as K.G.M., and deliberations have stalled to the point that Judge Carolyn B. Kuhl warned jurors that failure to reach consensus on at least one defendant could trigger a costly partial retrial.
This uncertainty stands in sharp contrast to a separate but related case in New Mexico, where a jury delivered a decisive verdict just one day earlier, finding Meta liable on all counts and awarding $375 million in damages for exploiting children’s vulnerabilities. The Los Angeles outcome remains unknown, but both cases signal growing legal vulnerability for major social platforms over their impact on young users’ mental health and safety.
Table of Contents
- What Do We Know About the Los Angeles Jury Deadlock?
- The New Mexico Verdict and What It Signals
- Judge Kuhl’s Warning About Partial Mistrial
- How These Verdicts May Affect Other Social Media Claims
- What Happens if Meta and YouTube Lose?
- The New Mexico Judge’s Public Nuisance Phase
- What Comes Next for Both Cases
What Do We Know About the Los Angeles Jury Deadlock?
The Los Angeles jury resumed deliberations on Tuesday morning, March 25, 2026, after signaling a possible stalemate regarding one of the two defendants in the case. Judge Kuhl made clear that if jurors cannot agree on a verdict for either Meta or YouTube, the court would need to declare a mistrial on that defendant alone—a scenario that would necessitate a separate retrial at significant cost and effort. The jury has been deliberating on the core claim that Meta and YouTube used “engineered addiction” features—such as infinite scroll, algorithmic recommendations, and notification systems designed to maximize engagement—to knowingly cause psychological harm to a minor.
K.G.M., the plaintiff, alleges that prolonged exposure to these platforms led to depression, anxiety, and other mental health issues. The defendants have countered by arguing that the plaintiff’s home environment, family dynamics, and personal circumstances—not platform design—are the primary cause of any mental health struggles, a defense strategy common in addiction litigation. The fact that jurors have signaled possible deadlock is not unusual in civil cases involving complex causation and competing expert testimony, but it does underscore the difficulty of proving intent and direct harm when multiple factors influence a teenager’s psychological state. Jurors must weigh expert testimony about platform design against the reality that every teenager using social media does not experience identical outcomes, making individual causation hard to establish beyond reasonable doubt.
The New Mexico Verdict and What It Signals
Just one day before the Los Angeles jury’s struggles, a different jury in New Mexico reached a decisive verdict on March 24, 2026, finding meta liable on all counts for violating consumer protection laws and for practices deemed “unconscionable” in their targeting of children. The New Mexico jury awarded $375 million in civil damages—a sum far exceeding initial settlement estimates and reflecting juror anger over Meta’s practices. The verdict found that Meta engaged in thousands of separate violations of New Mexico consumer protection law, with each violation counted independently toward the total penalty. Notably, the jury did not need to prove that Meta’s actions caused specific measurable harm to a specific child; instead, they focused on whether Meta’s practices were inherently unfair, deceptive, or exploitative of children’s developmental vulnerabilities.
However, important distinctions exist between the New Mexico case and the Los Angeles trial. The New Mexico case focused narrowly on consumer protection violations—whether Meta’s conduct was unconscionable under state law—whereas the Los Angeles case involves a direct personal injury claim in which the plaintiff must prove that Meta’s actions caused her specific mental health damages. The burden of proof differs, as does the legal framework, which means a New Mexico victory does not automatically translate to a Los Angeles win. Additionally, the New Mexico verdict is likely to face appeal from Meta, which has already stated it “respectfully” disagrees and plans to challenge the judgment.
Judge Kuhl’s Warning About Partial Mistrial
Judge Carolyn B. Kuhl’s statement that a hung jury on one defendant could force a partial retrial reflects the complexity of multi-defendant litigation. If jurors can agree on a verdict for one defendant—say, Meta—but cannot reach consensus on the other—YouTube—the court must declare a mistrial on YouTube alone. This creates a messy situation: Meta could face liability while YouTube goes retried, or vice versa, requiring the court system to litigate essentially the same facts twice.
The prospect of a partial mistrial also raises questions about jury fatigue, the cost of prolonged deliberations, and whether additional jury instructions or clarifications from the judge might help break the deadlock. Some courts have used supplemental instructions or allowed jurors to submit questions back to the judge in such situations, but Judge Kuhl’s warning suggests she may be preparing for the possibility that no instruction will resolve the impasse. A partial retrial would delay justice for the plaintiff K.G.M. by months or possibly years, allowing appeals, settlement negotiations, or another full trial. It would also consume judicial resources and jury time in an already lengthy proceeding.
How These Verdicts May Affect Other Social Media Claims
Both the New Mexico verdict and the ongoing Los Angeles trial are part of the first major wave of lawsuits alleging that social media platforms cause mental health harm to minors. The New Mexico $375 million award will likely embolden other plaintiffs and their attorneys to file similar cases in different states, banking on the precedent that juries find Meta’s practices exploitative. Attorneys arguing cases in states with strong consumer protection laws similar to New Mexico’s may cite the verdict as persuasive evidence, even if it is not binding on courts outside New Mexico.
Conversely, if the Los Angeles jury acquits Meta and YouTube on the direct personal injury claims, it would suggest that proving individual causation—the link between platform use and a specific plaintiff’s mental health damage—remains difficult and costly, potentially deterring future suits of that type. The strategic implications are significant. If plaintiffs can succeed using consumer protection law (as in New Mexico) without proving individual causation, future litigation may shift away from personal injury frameworks toward broader consumer protection and unfair practice claims. Conversely, if the Los Angeles personal injury suit fails, plaintiffs may conclude that direct causation is too hard to prove and consolidate around consumer protection and regulatory violations instead.
What Happens if Meta and YouTube Lose?
If the Los Angeles jury returns a guilty verdict against Meta, YouTube, or both, the defendants will almost certainly appeal. Appeals in major civil cases can take years, and appellate courts may overturn or reduce damages based on legal errors at trial. Meta and YouTube both have substantial resources for litigation and appellate defense, which means a loss in Los Angeles would not immediately translate into massive payouts or business changes.
However, a plaintiff victory would strengthen the case for regulatory action at the state and federal levels, as legislators and regulators often look to jury verdicts as signals that certain practices warrant restrictions or bans. A critical limitation to keep in mind is that even if Meta and YouTube lose, the judgment would apply only to K.G.M. and would not automatically entitle other minors to sue successfully. Each plaintiff would still need to prove damages and causation specific to their own circumstances, though a jury verdict in one case could influence the outcomes of subsequent trials.
The New Mexico Judge’s Public Nuisance Phase
The New Mexico verdict is not final. Judge Chaz Gallegos has scheduled additional proceedings, potentially in May 2026, to determine whether Meta created a “public nuisance” and should be ordered to change specific business practices—such as disabling addictive features, limiting algorithmic recommendations to minors, or restricting notification frequency.
This second phase, conducted without a jury, would focus on whether Meta’s conduct caused broad, unreasonable interference with public health and safety. If the judge finds a public nuisance exists, Meta could face injunctive relief (orders to change behavior) in addition to the $375 million in damages already awarded. This is significant because injunctive relief—forcing Meta to redesign features—could have broader impact than damages alone, potentially affecting millions of users, not just those in New Mexico.
What Comes Next for Both Cases
The Los Angeles jury will continue deliberating, and a verdict could come within days or weeks—or the jury may deadlock completely, forcing Judge Kuhl to declare a mistrial. If a mistrial is declared, the parties will face difficult choices: retry the case at enormous cost, negotiate a settlement, or appeal the mistrial ruling itself.
The New Mexico case, pending the May public nuisance phase, is likely headed toward appeal regardless of what Judge Gallegos decides. Both cases are setting precedent for how courts will evaluate social media platforms’ duty of care to minors and whether addiction-by-design is legally actionable. The outcomes will shape not only future litigation against Meta and YouTube but also the broader conversation around platform regulation and teen mental health protection.
You Might Also Like
- Meta and YouTube Trial Outcome Still Unknown as Jury Delays Verdict
- Meta and YouTube Trial Outcome Still Pending as Jury Deliberates
- Jury Still Considering Evidence in Landmark Meta and YouTube Trial
Open Settlements You Can Claim Now
Browse current class action settlements accepting claims — several require no proof of purchase: