As of March 25, 2026, the Meta trial situation presents a split verdict: a jury in New Mexico has reached a decision, finding Meta liable on all counts and awarding a $375 million penalty as of March 24, 2026, while a separate jury in Los Angeles continues deliberating in a social media addiction case. The contrast between these two major proceedings reflects the expanding legal pressure on Meta over its practices affecting young users.
The New Mexico trial represents a watershed moment—it marks the first time a state has prevailed at trial against a major technology company for harming young people. The verdict centers on allegations that Meta misled users about safety risks and enabled child sexual exploitation across Facebook, Instagram, and WhatsApp. Meanwhile, in California, jurors are grappling with whether Meta’s design practices constituted deliberately addictive manipulation targeting youth. Both trials underscore mounting accountability for social media platforms.
Table of Contents
- What Is the Current Status of Meta’s Multiple Trials?
- New Mexico Verdict—What Did the Jury Find Against Meta?
- Los Angeles Trial—Social Media Addiction and Engagement Design
- What Happens Next—Upcoming Timelines and Proceedings
- Meta’s Response and the Appeal Process
- How These Verdicts Could Affect Other Pending Meta Lawsuits
- What Should Affected Users Do?
What Is the Current Status of Meta’s Multiple Trials?
As of March 25, 2026, Meta faces very different outcomes in two landmark cases proceeding simultaneously. The New Mexico trial concluded with a jury verdict on March 24, 2026, finding Meta liable on all charges. That jury’s work is complete, and the case has moved to a different phase. The Los Angeles trial, by contrast, remains in active jury deliberation. The jury began hearing closing arguments in early February 2026 and as of March 25 still has not reached a consensus on liability.
Court reports indicate the jury has expressed difficulty reaching a verdict, signaling potential deadlock. The two trials address fundamentally different legal theories. New Mexico pursued claims that Meta violated state law by misleading consumers about the safety risks posed by their platforms while knowingly helping child sexual exploitation. The Los Angeles case centers on whether Meta’s engagement algorithms and feature design constitute negligent and intentional harm through addictive practices that targeted vulnerable young users. K.G.M., a 20-year-old from Chico, California, is the lead plaintiff in the Los Angeles action. These parallel proceedings create a complex legal landscape where one verdict may influence outcomes in the other, though technically each jury decides only its own case.
New Mexico Verdict—What Did the Jury Find Against Meta?
On March 24, 2026, a New Mexico jury returned a guilty verdict on all counts, holding meta liable for violations of state consumer protection and child safety laws. The jury awarded $375 million in damages, a significant penalty that underscores the jury’s assessment of Meta’s culpability. The charges focused on Meta’s alleged deception regarding the risks its platforms posed to children and teenagers, combined with its failure to adequately safeguard young users from sexual exploitation. The verdict is historic because New Mexico became the first state to prevail at trial against a major tech company in a lawsuit centered on harm to young people.
this distinction matters legally and culturally. Jurors heard evidence that Meta knowingly designed its platforms to be engaging and habit-forming, was aware of the mental health risks to minors, and failed to implement adequate safety measures despite internal knowledge of these dangers. The verdict suggests that a jury of ordinary citizens, when presented with comprehensive evidence, concluded that Meta’s conduct crossed the line from aggressive business practices into actionable harm. However, the verdict is not final—Meta has stated it “respectfully” disagrees and plans to appeal, meaning the $375 million judgment may be reduced, reversed, or restructured through the appellate process.
Los Angeles Trial—Social Media Addiction and Engagement Design
The Los Angeles case takes a narrower but equally important legal angle: whether Meta deliberately designed its platforms to be addictive in ways that harmed a young user. K.G.M. alleges that Meta’s algorithms and features—including infinite scroll, notification systems, and engagement metrics—were engineered to capture and hold the attention of young people, contributing to her mental health harms. Unlike the New Mexico case, which focused on deception and child exploitation, the Los Angeles suit emphasizes design-driven addiction. The jury in Los Angeles began hearing evidence and arguments in early February 2026, meaning jurors have been deliberating for roughly seven weeks as of late March.
That extended timeline itself suggests complexity and potential disagreement among jurors. Judge Carolyn B. Kuhl warned the jury that failure to reach a consensus would necessitate a partial retrial, a costly and time-consuming process. The stakes for Meta are enormous: over 2,000 additional lawsuits depend on the outcome of this case. If the Los Angeles jury finds Meta liable, it establishes a precedent and evidentiary record that plaintiffs’ attorneys can cite in subsequent cases, even if each case is technically decided on its own facts.
What Happens Next—Upcoming Timelines and Proceedings
Both cases have distinct next phases that will play out over coming months. In New Mexico, the trial is not fully concluded despite the jury verdict. Beginning May 4, 2026, non-jury proceedings will commence to determine whether Meta created a public nuisance and, if so, whether Meta should be required to fund public remediation programs. This phase is a continuation of the New Mexico case rather than a separate appeal. The state will present evidence that Meta’s conduct harmed not just individual users but the public at large, and if successful, may secure ongoing funding for services addressing social media-related harms.
In Los Angeles, the immediate question is whether the jury will eventually reach consensus. If jurors continue to deadlock, Judge Kuhl will likely declare a mistrial on disputed counts, requiring those claims to be retried before a different jury. Alternatively, jurors may agree on some counts but not others. Any verdict the Los Angeles jury renders will likely be appealed by one or both sides, extending the case for years. The contrast between these timelines highlights how different legal theories and jurisdictions can produce different procedural pathways.
Meta’s Response and the Appeal Process
Meta released a statement saying it “respectfully” disagrees with the New Mexico verdict and intends to appeal. The company’s appeal strategy will likely focus on challenging the legal theory the jury applied, arguing that the evidence did not support the findings, or contending that the damages award is disproportionate. Appellate courts review jury verdicts through a narrow lens—generally, appeals courts defer to jury findings of fact if there is any reasonable evidence to support them, and focus instead on whether the law was applied correctly. This means Meta must convince an appeals court not merely that jurors could have decided differently, but that they clearly erred in interpreting or applying New Mexico law.
The appeal process itself is important context for affected users and those considering whether to file claims. A $375 million verdict is significant, but it is not final money paid to claimants. Appeals can take years, and damages may be reduced, restructured, or eliminated. However, the New Mexico case also creates precedent and persuasive authority in other jurisdictions. Other states’ plaintiffs can point to the New Mexico jury’s findings and say, “A jury has already heard this evidence and found Meta liable.” This precedential value may prompt settlement discussions or influence outcomes in other cases, even if the New Mexico appeal succeeds.
How These Verdicts Could Affect Other Pending Meta Lawsuits
The universe of legal claims against Meta is vast. Federal litigation, state litigation, class actions, individual suits, and regulatory investigations all overlap. The New Mexico verdict and the Los Angeles case—whatever the jury decides—will ripple through this ecosystem. Over 2,000 lawsuits depend specifically on the Los Angeles outcome, as those cases are consolidated or stayed pending that trial’s conclusion.
The New Mexico precedent, while technically binding only in New Mexico courts, carries persuasive weight nationwide. Consider the practical effect: if the Los Angeles jury finds Meta liable for design-based addiction harms, plaintiffs’ lawyers in federal court, in other states, and in other lawsuits will cite that jury verdict as evidence that Meta’s conduct caused injury. Defense costs rise, settlement incentives increase, and the company’s legal exposure expands. Conversely, if the Los Angeles jury deadlocks or finds Meta not liable, Meta gains use in negotiations and future trials become harder for plaintiffs. These trials, in short, are not isolated events—they function as indicators of how American juries assess Meta’s responsibility.
What Should Affected Users Do?
For users—particularly young people or parents—who believe Meta’s platforms caused harm, these trial outcomes may create opportunities to pursue compensation through existing class actions or individual claims. The New Mexico verdict proves that courts and juries are willing to hold Meta accountable, which may encourage settlement discussions in other cases or motivate users to investigate whether they qualify for existing claims. However, no user should wait passively for appeals or future trials.
Legal claims often have statutes of limitations, meaning there are deadlines after which claims cannot be filed. Looking forward, these cases signal that Meta’s legal and financial liability for youth harms is increasingly accepted by American courts. The company faces not only the trials currently in progress but also ongoing regulatory scrutiny and additional lawsuits. For consumers, this suggests a moment to evaluate claims, review eligibility for existing settlements, and understand that courts are moving toward accountability—but also that the process is slow and appeals will extend these cases years into the future.