As of March 25, 2026, the Los Angeles jury in the Meta trial remains deadlocked, with no verdict announced after more than nine days of deliberations that began on March 13. The jury signaled difficulty on March 24 when it sent a note to Judge Carolyn B. Kuhl indicating trouble reaching consensus on at least one defendant—prompting the judge to instruct jurors to continue working toward a decision.
However, the case has progressed from the liability phase into the damages phase, meaning the jury has moved past determining whether Meta is responsible and is now weighing financial compensation for the plaintiff, a 20-year-old California woman who claims the platforms caused her social media addiction and resulting mental health damage. It also examines the plaintiff’s claims, the precedent this trial sets, and the timeline for resolution—including the warning that if jurors deadlock completely, the case could face a partial retrial.
Table of Contents
- How Long Has the Jury Been Deliberating and What’s Their Current Status?
- Why Is This Jury Struggling to Reach a Verdict?
- How Does the New Mexico $375 Million Verdict Affect the Los Angeles Trial?
- What Happens if the Jury Cannot Reach a Verdict?
- What Is the Plaintiff Claiming, and What Evidence Is the Jury Weighing?
- What Precedent Does This Case Set if Meta Is Found Liable?
- What Are the Next Milestones and Timeline for Resolution?
How Long Has the Jury Been Deliberating and What’s Their Current Status?
The jury began deliberating on March 13, 2026, meaning by March 25, they had spent more than nine days attempting to reach a verdict. On March 24—day 10 of deliberations—the jury sent a formal note to the presiding judge indicating that they were having difficulty reaching a verdict on an unnamed defendant. This signal is significant because it shows the jury is divided and struggling, not simply taking time to carefully weigh evidence; deadlocked juries often require intervention from judges to either continue deliberating or, in some cases, lead to mistrials. Judge Kuhl’s response was to instruct the jury to continue deliberating rather than declare a mistrial immediately.
According to reporting from MyNewsLA.com, the judge warned jurors that if they could not reach a verdict, the case would require at least a partial retrial, adding pressure for them to reach consensus. The jury has already moved beyond the liability phase (determining fault) and is now in the damages phase (determining how much Meta should pay), indicating they have collectively agreed that Meta bears some responsibility but cannot yet agree on the financial consequences. The timeline matters for defendants and plaintiffs alike. Extended jury deliberations signal a case that doesn’t have a clear-cut answer, and in cases involving complex issues like social media’s role in child mental health, such disagreement reflects genuine disagreement about causation, negligence standards, and appropriate penalties.
Why Is This Jury Struggling to Reach a Verdict?
The difficulty the jury is experiencing likely stems from several factors inherent to the case’s complexity. The plaintiff’s claims center on social media addiction and its mental health consequences—causation questions that require jurors to isolate meta‘s platforms from dozens of other environmental, genetic, and social factors that affect a 20-year-old’s mental health. Unlike a product liability case where a defective brake can be directly tested, proving that Instagram and Facebook directly caused the plaintiff’s anxiety, depression, and body-image issues requires jurors to weigh complex psychological and behavioral evidence without absolute proof of causation. However, the jury’s progression to the damages phase suggests they have found sufficient evidence to hold Meta liable for some degree of harm.
The sticking point may not be “did Meta cause damage” but rather “how much should they pay, and how do we calculate it fairly?” When a jury moves past liability into damages but cannot agree, it often means jurors disagree about the severity of harm, the percentage of fault attributable to Meta versus other factors, or whether specific damage categories (past medical expenses, future emotional suffering, loss of earning potential) can be quantified for a person still alive and potentially recovering. These are genuinely difficult questions without correct answers, only reasonable ranges. The jury composition likely plays a role as well. In civil cases, jurors often include people with varying levels of sympathy toward plaintiffs versus corporations, and social media’s impact on children is a topic where even educated jurors hold strong, conflicting beliefs.
How Does the New Mexico $375 Million Verdict Affect the Los Angeles Trial?
On the same day—March 25, 2026—a New Mexico jury reached a verdict in a separate Meta trial, awarding $375 million in damages and finding that Meta’s platforms are harmful to children’s mental health. This verdict is historic: it is the first time Meta has been held accountable in a jury trial for child safety issues, according to CNBC reporting. The New Mexico jury found that Meta violated the state’s unfair and deceptive practices law, and damages were calculated at $5,000 per violation, representing the maximum allowed under state law.
The Los Angeles jury is aware of this precedent in two senses: literally, because judges typically instruct juries to ignore media coverage and outside verdicts, but practically, because the New Mexico verdict now exists as a public record showing that another jury did find Meta liable and substantial in child safety harm. This can influence jury psychology—if one jury of ordinary citizens in New Mexico found $375 million in damages appropriate, should the Los Angeles jury award less, more, or a similar range? The timing of the New Mexico verdict (same day) means it became public while the LA jury was actively deliberating, though the judge may have given instructions to disregard it. The key difference is that the New Mexico verdict addressed whether Meta created a public nuisance (which will be decided in a second phase by a judge, not a jury, beginning May 4, 2026), while the Los Angeles case involves a single plaintiff’s personal injury claims. However, both establish that juries are willing to hold Meta accountable for harm to minors and young adults.
What Happens if the Jury Cannot Reach a Verdict?
If the Los Angeles jury remains deadlocked and cannot unanimously agree on a verdict, Judge Kuhl will likely declare a mistrial, meaning the case essentially resets. However, the judge has already warned that only a partial retrial would be necessary. This matters significantly: the jury has already established some liability findings (they moved to damages phase), so a new trial would not start from scratch asking “is Meta liable?” but rather would replay the damages phase with a fresh jury. This saves time compared to a full retrial of the entire case but still requires the parties to return to court, present evidence again, and wait for a new jury to deliberate.
A partial retrial also costs the plaintiff and Meta’s legal teams substantial resources in attorney hours, expert witnesses, and court time. For the plaintiff, who is seeking to establish that Meta caused her personal harm, a retrial is not a win; it means the original jury was divided and the case remains unresolved. For Meta, a mistrial is sometimes preferable to a large damages award, but it keeps the company in litigation and exposes it to the risk of a second jury awarding damages the first jury couldn’t agree on. The retrial process would likely not happen immediately; state courts typically manage trial schedules with scheduling motions, and Meta would likely appeal any mistrial ruling, extending the timeline further. If retrial does occur, jurors may deliberate differently, as jury composition changes and the landscape of child mental health litigation against social media has shifted considerably since the original trial began.
What Is the Plaintiff Claiming, and What Evidence Is the Jury Weighing?
The plaintiff in the Los Angeles case is a 20-year-old California woman identified in court documents as K.G.M. or “Kaley.” Her claims center on social media addiction beginning in childhood, leading to anxiety, depression, and body-image issues. This is a personal injury claim: she alleges that Meta’s design of Instagram and Facebook—algorithms that prioritize engagement, infinite scroll features, and features like photo filters and likes—exploited her developing brain and caused measurable psychological harm. The jury is weighing evidence about Meta’s knowledge of these risks.
Internal Meta documents (similar to the “Facebook Papers” leaked by former employee Frances Haugen) show the company conducted research on how its platforms affect teenage mental health, including effects on body image and anxiety, while publicly downplaying these risks. If the jury believes Meta knowingly created a product it understood to be harmful and marketed it to young users anyway, that supports a finding of negligence or even intentional misconduct. However, Meta’s defense likely argues that social media is a choice, that other factors (family stress, school pressure, genetics) contribute equally or more to depression and anxiety, and that the plaintiff cannot prove her mental health problems were caused by Instagram rather than correlation. The damages phase requires the jury to calculate, in dollars, how much harm the plaintiff suffered. Did she lose income due to mental health issues? Did she incur medical expenses for therapy or treatment? What is the value of emotional suffering and lost quality of life? These calculations are inherently subjective and often where juries deadlock—some jurors believe $1 million is appropriate compensation, others argue $5 million, and still others resist awarding damages at all if they doubt causation.
What Precedent Does This Case Set if Meta Is Found Liable?
If the Los Angeles jury eventually reaches a verdict finding Meta liable, it establishes a direct precedent in California that Meta’s business practices can legally be held accountable for personal mental health injuries. California courts’ precedent would apply to subsequent cases filed in the state, potentially opening Meta to litigation from other users claiming similar harms. Unlike the New Mexico case (which addressed unfair business practices under New Mexico law), a personal injury verdict in California could support claims from other Californians that they, too, suffered anxiety, depression, or other mental health consequences and deserve compensation. The implications extend beyond legal precedent to Meta’s business model.
If a California jury concludes that Meta’s algorithms and design features constitute negligent conduct toward young users, it strengthens arguments for statutory regulation of social media platforms, as legislators could point to jury findings as evidence that industry self-regulation has failed. The case also influences pending legislation like the Kids Online Safety Act (KOSA), which has been debated in Congress and would impose new transparency and safety requirements on social media companies serving minors. However, a verdict against Meta in this single case does not automatically mean Meta loses all future cases; each jury must weigh evidence anew, and different juries reach different conclusions based on how evidence is presented, which experts testify, and jury composition. The plaintiff in this case was also a minor when she began using social media, which may strengthen her claims compared to a case brought by an adult who adopted Instagram after brain development was complete.
What Are the Next Milestones and Timeline for Resolution?
The immediate question is when, or if, the current jury will reach a verdict. Judge Kuhl has instructed them to continue deliberating, but no deadline has been publicly announced. If the jury returns a verdict in the coming days, the trial moves either to appeal (if Meta loses) or to closure (if Meta prevails). If the jury remains deadlocked, a mistrial is declared and a new trial must be scheduled, which could take months to organize.
In the separate New Mexico case, the next phase begins May 4, 2026, when a judge (not a jury) will decide whether Meta created a public nuisance—a different legal standard requiring a different showing of evidence. This phase could result in additional penalties or injunctive relief requiring Meta to change its practices, adding another layer of potential liability for the company across multiple jurisdictions. By late 2026, we will likely have clarity not only on the Los Angeles verdict (or retrial status) but also on whether New Mexico’s judge finds a public nuisance, establishing a broader pattern of accountability or a narrow precedent limited to that state’s law. For consumers and parents monitoring Meta’s legal exposure, these cases represent the first successful jury trials holding the company accountable for child safety harms—a shift from the company’s long history of avoiding jury liability and settling regulatory cases with government agencies rather than juries of ordinary citizens.