As of March 25, 2026, the jury in the landmark Meta and YouTube addiction trial remains in deliberations with no verdict reached, after eight days of intense discussion and at least one major point of contention. Jurors reported difficulty reaching consensus on one of the defendants and asked the presiding judge, Carolyn Kuhl, for guidance on how to proceed—with the judge warning that a failure to reach a verdict would result in a mistrial and require an entirely new trial at substantial cost to all parties.
This case centers on 20-year-old Kaley G.M. from California, who claims that compulsive use of Instagram and YouTube beginning at age 6 exacerbated her depression and suicidal ideation, and has pursued damages against Meta and Alphabet’s YouTube.
Table of Contents
- What Are the Core Claims in This Social Media Addiction Trial?
- Why Does This Single Jury Verdict Matter to Thousands of Other Cases?
- What Is the Jury Struggling With During These Eight Days of Deliberations?
- What Damages Is the Jury Weighing, and What Is Kaley G.M. Seeking?
- How Long Can Deliberations Continue Before a Mistrial Is Declared?
- What Would a Verdict Mean for Other Social Media Addiction Plaintiffs?
- What Happens If a Mistrial Is Declared, and What Comes After This Verdict?
What Are the Core Claims in This Social Media Addiction Trial?
The trial centers on a straightforward but major legal argument: that Meta’s Instagram and Alphabet’s YouTube engaged in deceptive and addictive design practices that harmed a young user’s mental health. The plaintiff, Kaley G.M., alleges that exposure to these platforms starting at age 6—when algorithms optimized for engagement began shaping her content feed—created a compulsive pattern of use that directly contributed to her depression and suicidal ideation. Unlike traditional product liability cases involving tangible defects, this trial asks the jury to evaluate whether social media platforms’ algorithmic design choices constitute actionable harm under consumer protection and personal injury law.
The significance of this distinction cannot be overstated. For decades, social media companies have argued that their platforms are neutral conduits for user-generated content, not responsible for how users interact with them. This trial challenges that premise by focusing on the *design* of the platforms themselves—specifically how algorithms recommend addictive content, encourage endless scrolling, and employ psychological techniques known to increase engagement at the expense of user wellbeing. The jury must weigh expert testimony about neuroscience, adolescent brain development, and platform design against the platforms’ arguments about user choice and parental responsibility.
Why Does This Single Jury Verdict Matter to Thousands of Other Cases?
The stakes of this trial extend far beyond one plaintiff’s compensation. More than 2,000 lawsuits currently pending against Meta, YouTube, Snap, TikTok, and other platforms hinge directly on the outcome of this jury’s decision. This is a “bellwether” case—a term used in mass litigation when one case is selected to test the strength of claims and defenses that will affect hundreds or thousands of similar lawsuits.
If the jury finds Meta and YouTube liable and awards significant damages to Kaley G.M., it dramatically increases the likelihood that many of the other 2,000+ pending cases will settle favorably for plaintiffs or result in judgments against the platforms. Conversely, if the jury rules in favor of the defendants or awards minimal damages, it weakens the legal position of thousands of other young users claiming similar harms. This creates a cascading effect: one verdict can determine whether class action settlements materialize, whether individual plaintiffs have viable claims, and whether platforms face systemic pressure to redesign their algorithms and safety features. The potential impact extends to Meta, Snap, TikTok, and YouTube collectively—meaning a verdict against Meta and YouTube today could set precedent that affects lawsuits against other social platforms tomorrow.
What Is the Jury Struggling With During These Eight Days of Deliberations?
The jury’s reported “difficulty coming to a consensus regarding one defendant” provides a crucial window into how jurors are thinking about platform liability. This deadlock suggests that jurors may have more confidence in holding one company (either Meta or YouTube) responsible than the other, or that they disagree on whether both platforms share equal culpability for the harm Kaley G.M. experienced. Since both companies are being tried together, the jury must reach verdicts on each separately—and the fact that they’re split on one indicates a fundamental disagreement about that platform’s degree of fault or knowledge of harm.
Judge Carolyn Kuhl’s response to the jury’s impasse—instructing them to continue deliberating despite the difficulty—reflects standard judicial practice in high-stakes litigation. Judges typically push juries to work through disagreements rather than declare a mistrial prematurely, because a hung jury (failure to reach verdict) would result in a costly new trial with a fresh jury. However, the eight-day timeline is already substantial. Most jury deliberations in civil cases conclude within three to five days, meaning this jury is working through genuinely complex questions about how to assign responsibility for harm that occurred through an app, across multiple years, in a developing adolescent brain.
What Damages Is the Jury Weighing, and What Is Kaley G.M. Seeking?
While Kaley G.M.’s complaint does not publicly specify an exact dollar amount sought, the jury is tasked with calculating compensatory damages—money intended to compensate her for the documented harm: depression, suicidal ideation, and the emotional and psychological toll of addiction beginning at age 6. In comparable cases involving childhood trauma or personal injury, damages typically include medical and mental health treatment costs, lost wages or educational opportunities, and pain and suffering damages that account for the severity and duration of harm. For a 20-year-old plaintiff claiming harm from age 6 onward, the jury must consider fourteen years of documented mental health impacts, likely years of therapy or treatment, and the ongoing effects of that early exposure during critical developmental windows.
Unlike cases where a single event causes injury, this case requires the jury to quantify the cumulative, long-term damage of algorithmic exposure and compulsive use. The challenge is that no standardized formula exists for “addiction to a social platform”—the jury must rely on expert testimony and comparable cases to arrive at a reasonable number. This ambiguity may be contributing to the jury’s difficulty in reaching consensus, as different jurors may have vastly different views on appropriate compensation.
How Long Can Deliberations Continue Before a Mistrial Is Declared?
Legally, a jury can deliberate for weeks if a judge believes they are working productively toward a verdict. However, practical constraints typically limit deliberations to a few weeks at most. Judge Kuhl has warned jurors that if they cannot reach a verdict, a mistrial would be declared—requiring the case to start over with a new jury, new jury selection, and the entire trial repeated from opening statements through closing arguments. That process would likely take another six to eight weeks and cost all parties significant time and money.
This warning serves a dual purpose: it encourages jurors to work harder toward consensus, and it sets expectations about the consequences of their inability to agree. In some cases, judges will give jurors a “modified verdict” or “majority verdict” option, allowing a supermajority (10 out of 12, for example) to reach a verdict rather than requiring unanimity. However, federal civil trials typically require a supermajority of at least 10 out of 12 jurors to agree. Whether Judge Kuhl offers this option remains unknown, but her reference to continued deliberations suggests she has not yet reached the breaking point for declaring a mistrial.
What Would a Verdict Mean for Other Social Media Addiction Plaintiffs?
A plaintiff victory in this case would establish several important legal principles: that social media platforms can be held liable for harm caused by addictive design, that algorithm-driven engagement strategies can constitute actionable negligence or deceptive practices, and that young users have a viable legal path to compensation. For the 2,000+ pending cases, this would provide a roadmap for settlement negotiations. Defense attorneys representing Meta, YouTube, Snap, and TikTok would face pressure from their clients to settle because a jury verdict proving liability creates predictability—defendants would rather settle multiple cases at a negotiated rate than face unpredictable jury verdicts.
In addition, a plaintiff verdict would likely trigger appeals from the platforms, extending the litigation timeline by one to three years. However, even during appeals, lower courts’ verdicts often encourage settlement of related cases because defendants cannot rely on overturning the verdict. If the verdict includes a substantial compensatory damages award—say, $5 million to $20 million or higher—it would reset plaintiffs’ expectations in pending cases and likely accelerate settlement discussions across the industry.
What Happens If a Mistrial Is Declared, and What Comes After This Verdict?
If the jury continues to deadlock and Judge Kuhl declares a mistrial, the case would be tried again with a new jury, likely beginning in late 2026 or early 2027. This outcome would be partially good news for Meta and YouTube (case not lost yet, opportunity for a different jury) and partially bad news (delay, additional litigation costs, and no finality). For the 2,000+ pending cases, a mistrial would mean indefinite delay—those cases would likely pause pending the outcome of a retrial, further prolonging the wait for resolution. Regardless of whether this trial ends in a verdict or mistrial, appeals will follow.
If jurors find Meta and YouTube liable, the platforms will appeal on legal and factual grounds, asking higher courts to overturn or reduce damages. This appellate process could take three to five years. However, for the broader litigation landscape, this trial—whether it concludes with a verdict or mistrial—has already changed the conversation. Platforms can no longer claim immunity from liability for addictive design, and regulators and lawmakers are paying close attention to how courts treat these claims. The jury’s deliberations themselves, and whatever verdict emerges, will shape the future of platform accountability for the next decade.
You Might Also Like
- Meta and YouTube Trial Outcome Still Unknown as Jury Deliberates
- Meta and YouTube Trial Outcome Still Pending as Jury Deliberates
- Jury Still Weighing Evidence in Meta and YouTube Trial
Open Settlements You Can Claim Now
Browse current class action settlements accepting claims — several require no proof of purchase: