If the jury in the Meta and YouTube social media addiction trial cannot reach a unanimous decision, a mistrial won’t automatically result. Unlike criminal trials that require all 12 jurors to agree, civil cases like this one need only 9 of the 12 jurors to agree on liability and damages. This lower threshold significantly reduces the likelihood of a hung jury deadlock, making it more probable that a verdict will eventually be reached even if jurors initially disagree. In the landmark case brought by Kaley GM and 1,599 other plaintiffs who claim Instagram, Facebook, and YouTube engineered addictive features that harmed their mental health, Judge Carolyn Kuhl has instructed the jury on this 9-of-12 standard, which is standard procedure in California civil litigation. This article explains what happens when jurors can’t agree in civil trials, how the Meta and YouTube jury’s deliberations work under California law, what signs indicate a potential deadlock, and what scenarios could follow if the jury is unable to reach any verdict at all.
The jury began deliberating on Friday, March 13, 2026, and by mid-March was actively discussing damages—a sign the jury may already be moving toward finding the defendants liable. The fact that jurors asked about damages calculations suggests they’ve likely already agreed that Meta and YouTube violated duty of care or other legal claims. Because only 9 jurors need to agree rather than all 12, the jury has flexibility that criminal juries don’t have. Even if 3 jurors hold out against finding the defendants liable, the other 9 can still deliver a verdict. This structural difference in civil law is one of the most important factors that shapes how this high-stakes trial could conclude.
Table of Contents
- How Does the 9-of-12 Requirement Protect Against Hung Juries?
- What If Jurors Remain Deeply Divided on Liability?
- Where Is the Meta and YouTube Jury Now in Its Deliberations?
- What Damages Amounts Are Jurors Likely Discussing?
- What Could Cause the Jury to Deadlock Despite the 9-of-12 Rule?
- What Happens After a Verdict—Or If There’s a Mistrial?
- What Does This Trial Mean for Future Social Media Addiction Cases?
How Does the 9-of-12 Requirement Protect Against Hung Juries?
The 9-of-12 voting threshold in civil cases is intentionally designed to prevent the gridlock that sometimes occurs in criminal trials. In criminal proceedings, all 12 jurors must unanimously agree on guilt, which means even one dissenting juror can force a mistrial. By contrast, civil litigation requires only a supermajority—9 jurors must agree on liability and damages, while 3 can dissent. This 25% threshold for holdouts reflects a deliberate policy choice: civil cases involving money damages (rather than liberty or criminal punishment) carry a lower consensus requirement. In the Meta and youtube case, this means that even if two or three jurors strongly believe the plaintiffs haven’t met their burden of proof, the jury can still return a verdict if nine others vote to find the defendants responsible. This structure doesn’t eliminate disagreement; it accommodates it.
Jurors can—and frequently do—debate intensely in civil cases. Some may believe Instagram’s design features are addictive but not enough to satisfy the legal standard for negligence. Others may think YouTube deliberately concealed risks from younger users. Under the 9-of-12 rule, these differing opinions don’t paralyze the jury. Instead, they discuss, negotiate, and most jurors shift their positions or the minority accepts the majority view. The jury deliberations that began on March 13, 2026, are likely experiencing exactly this kind of honest disagreement and negotiation. The fact that jurors have asked about how to calculate damages is actually a positive signal—it suggests the jury has largely resolved the liability question and moved forward.
What If Jurors Remain Deeply Divided on Liability?
Even with the 9-of-12 standard, a scenario could arise where jurors are genuinely deadlocked: for example, if 8 jurors believe meta and YouTube created addictive systems that harmed young users, but 4 jurors believe the companies disclosed risks adequately and users had a choice to limit screen time. In this hypothetical 8-4 split, the jury would not yet have the 9 votes needed to agree on liability. Judge Kuhl would then have options: she could send the jury back to continue deliberating, asking them to reconsider their positions. This is sometimes called a “deadlock instruction” or reminder that they should strive to reach unanimous agreement (even though only 9 are required).
However, if the jury reports it is truly deadlocked and further deliberation is unlikely to produce movement, Judge Kuhl could declare a mistrial on that count. A mistrial doesn’t mean the plaintiffs lose—it means the case could potentially be retried with a new jury. The reality, though, is that a true hung jury is statistically rare in civil cases precisely because of the 9-of-12 threshold. In the Meta and YouTube trial involving 1,600 consolidated plaintiffs, a mistrial would be costly and time-consuming for everyone. Both the defendants and the plaintiffs would likely face pressure to settle rather than retry a bellwether case that has already consumed months of court time.
Where Is the Meta and YouTube Jury Now in Its Deliberations?
As of mid-March 2026, the jury has been deliberating for over a week, and crucially, it has asked the judge for guidance on calculating damages. This is a significant marker in the jury deliberation process. Jurors typically move through two distinct phases: first, they decide whether the defendant is liable (did Meta and YouTube breach a duty of care to young users?), and second, they calculate damages (if liable, how much compensation is appropriate?). The fact that this jury has reached the damages phase strongly suggests that at least 9 jurors have already agreed that the defendants are liable.
When a jury deadlocks on liability, it rarely asks detailed questions about damages calculations—those questions come after liability is resolved. The specific claims before Judge Kuhl’s jury are that Meta (Facebook and Instagram) and Google (YouTube) knowingly designed and deployed addictive features targeting minors, failed to warn users of mental health risks, and negligently caused harm. Kaley GM, a 20-year-old plaintiff, testified that she became addicted to YouTube at age 6 and Instagram at 9, leading to depression, anxiety, and self-harm. The jury must determine whether the companies had a legal duty to protect young users, whether they breached that duty, and what monetary damages would fairly compensate the 1,600 plaintiffs. The jury’s focus on damages suggests they’re moving toward holding the defendants responsible.
What Damages Amounts Are Jurors Likely Discussing?
When a jury in a 1,600-person consolidated case reaches the damages phase, the question becomes: per-plaintiff compensation or a lump-sum award? The jury will likely calculate either an average damages amount per plaintiff (multiplied by 1,600) or a total damages pool that would be distributed. For a landmark addiction case, comparable damages in other consumer protection verdicts have ranged from modest individual awards (a few hundred dollars per plaintiff in false advertising cases) to far larger amounts in cases involving direct physical harm or clear deception. A comparison: tobacco litigation sometimes resulted in hundreds of millions of dollars; data breach cases have produced settlements ranging from $50 to $500 per plaintiff. The jury in this case must weigh the severity of harm (depression, self-harm, academic consequences), the defendants’ culpability (did they deliberately design addictive features for minors?), and the precedent they’re setting. If the jury agrees that Meta and YouTube are liable, the damages question becomes highly consequential.
A low award ($50-$200 per plaintiff) would signal the jury viewed the harm as real but not catastrophic. A moderate award ($500-$2,000 per plaintiff) would indicate more serious wrongdoing. A high award ($5,000+ per plaintiff) would reflect the jury’s view that the companies knowingly engineered addiction in young people. However, if jurors remain divided on damages—say, 9 want to award $1,000 per plaintiff but 3 hold out for $10,000—the jury only needs 9 to agree, so the $1,000 figure would likely prevail. This is where the 9-of-12 rule helps prevent another hung jury.
What Could Cause the Jury to Deadlock Despite the 9-of-12 Rule?
A true deadlock in the Meta and YouTube case would be unusual but possible if jurors fundamentally disagreed on the law or facts. For example, if some jurors believed that parental responsibility—not the companies’ design—caused the harm to minors, this philosophical divide could prove difficult to bridge. Similarly, if some jurors rejected the premise that social media platforms can be addictive in a legal sense (as opposed to simply being engaging), they might refuse to find liability regardless of how many others voted to do so. The jury instructions from Judge Kuhl define the legal standards, but jurors can still interpret those standards differently. Another risk is jury fatigue or obstinacy.
If deliberations stretch over many weeks, some jurors may dig in simply because they’ve invested so much time in their position. The jury asked about damages early in deliberations (a good sign), but if they return to the judge days later saying they cannot agree on the specific dollar amount, a different kind of deadlock emerges. In a case this large (1,600 plaintiffs), disagreement over damages could theoretically prevent a verdict even if all 12 jurors agreed on liability. However, the 9-of-12 rule would still apply—9 could agree on damages even if 3 jurors want a different amount. A true deadlock would require jurors to be intransigent on the core legal question of liability, which is less likely once the jury has moved to damages discussions.
What Happens After a Verdict—Or If There’s a Mistrial?
If the jury returns a verdict—and all available evidence suggests they will—the losing side has the right to appeal. The defendants (Meta and Google) would likely appeal any large damages award, arguing that the trial was flawed, that the plaintiffs failed to prove their case, or that the damages were excessive. Such appeals can take years to resolve. If the jury deadlocks and Judge Kuhl declares a mistrial, the case returns to square one. The plaintiffs could refile, the parties could settle to avoid another trial, or the case could be abandoned.
Given the resources already invested in this bellwether trial and the media attention, settlement pressure would be significant. For the 1,600 consolidated plaintiffs, a verdict—even a low-damages verdict—creates precedent and closure. Many would likely prefer a certain verdict over the uncertainty of retrials or appeals. For Meta and YouTube, even a moderate liability finding could encourage settlement of other similar cases pending in courts nationwide. The verdict in this Los Angeles County case will ripple across the industry and influence how social media companies design products for minors going forward.
What Does This Trial Mean for Future Social Media Addiction Cases?
The Meta and YouTube trial is explicitly a bellwether case—a test case intended to establish facts and legal principles that apply to similar claims. If the jury finds the defendants liable, it strengthens the legal theory that social media platforms have a duty of care toward young users and that they can be held responsible for mental health harms. This could accelerate settlements in other pending cases and encourage plaintiffs’ lawyers to pursue similar claims.
Conversely, if the jury finds for the defendants, it would signal that the addiction theory faces challenges in court, at least as currently framed. The verdict is expected sometime after deliberations conclude, likely within days or weeks of mid-March 2026. Judge Kuhl has emphasized the jury’s role in a case of significant public importance—one that will shape how the technology industry views its responsibilities to young users. Whether the jury reaches a quick decision, deliberates for several more weeks, or deadlocks, the outcome will be closely watched by regulators, legislators, and tech companies nationwide.