Two landmark lawsuits against Meta are at critical junctures as of March 23, 2026, but neither has reached a jury verdict yet. The New Mexico trial, which has consumed six weeks of testimony, will enter closing arguments on Monday, March 24, 2026—the very next day—with the state prosecutor and Meta’s legal team presenting their final arguments to Santa Fe County jurors. Meanwhile, in California, a separate jury has been actively deliberating since March 13, 2026, in a social media addiction case that could affect thousands of similar claims nationwide.
These two trials represent fundamentally different challenges to Meta’s business practices: one focuses on whether the company violated consumer protection laws by misleading users about child safety, while the other examines whether Instagram and YouTube were designed to be addictive in ways that harmed a young user’s mental health. If you’ve been affected by Meta’s platforms or are considering joining a class action settlement, understanding these cases is essential context for the legal landscape surrounding social media accountability.
Table of Contents
- What Does the New Mexico Closing Arguments Mean for the Trial?
- The California Addiction Trial—Why Jury Deliberations Matter
- What Exactly Are the Allegations in These Trials?
- What Does the Evidence Actually Show About Meta’s Practices?
- What Could Go Wrong With These Trials From a Legal Perspective?
- What Happens After Closing Arguments and During Jury Deliberations?
- What These Trials Mean for the Broader Meta Litigation Landscape
What Does the New Mexico Closing Arguments Mean for the Trial?
The New Mexico trial represents the state Attorney General Raúl Torrez’s aggressive challenge to meta‘s practices. The case alleges that Meta violated New Mexico’s Unfair Practices Act on three separate counts, with prosecutors claiming the company engaged in “unconscionable” trade practices and systematically misled users—particularly parents—about the actual safety risks their children face on the platform. To build this case, New Mexico conducted an undercover investigation where state agents posed as children on Meta’s platforms and documented solicitations from other users, creating a factual record of predatory behavior that the state argues Meta’s platform enabled through design choices and insufficient moderation. Closing arguments scheduled for March 24, 2026, are the final opportunity for both sides to synthesize six weeks of testimony and shape how jurors interpret the evidence.
The state will argue that Meta knew its platforms attracted child predators and that the company prioritized engagement metrics over safety—a common allegation in Meta litigation. Meta’s defense team will counter that the company has invested heavily in safety tools and that the platform itself isn’t responsible for the illegal behavior of individual bad actors. This is a critical distinction: does a platform bear legal responsibility for crimes committed by users, or only for its own design choices and policies? One important detail: the jury has not yet been sequestered. This means jurors are currently going about their daily lives, potentially seeing news coverage, social media posts, or commentary about the case. Once deliberations begin—which could happen immediately after closing arguments—the judge may decide to sequester the jury to prevent outside influence on their decision-making process.
The California Addiction Trial—Why Jury Deliberations Matter
The California case presents a completely different type of harm claim. Kaley, a 20-year-old plaintiff, alleges that Instagram and youtube were specifically designed to create addictive behavioral patterns, and that this addiction contributed to depression and suicidal ideation during her teenage years. Unlike the New Mexico trial, which focuses on whether Meta violated consumer protection statutes, the California case is rooted in tort law—essentially arguing that Meta’s product design caused direct personal injury. What makes the California jury deliberation significant is the jury composition rule: only 9 of the 12 jurors need to agree on each count, rather than requiring unanimity. This lower threshold makes a plaintiff’s verdict somewhat more achievable than in a traditional criminal case.
The month-long trial included expert testimony on addiction from neuroscientists and psychologists, testimony from Meta executives about how the algorithmic feed works, and testimony from whistleblowers who worked on engagement optimization inside the company. The jury has been actively engaging with the evidence—they sent detailed questions to the judge on March 21, 2026, asking about Kaley’s family background, her Instagram usage patterns as a child, and how damages should be calculated if they find liability. However, a critical limitation of this case is that it’s a “bellwether” trial, meaning it’s the first test case for thousands of similar lawsuits. A verdict for the plaintiff would likely trigger settlements or additional litigation, but a verdict for Meta would not necessarily end other claims—each case involves different facts and different plaintiffs. The case is also narrower in scope than some other Meta litigation: it focuses on two platforms (Instagram and YouTube) and one user’s experience, rather than making a sweeping claim about Meta’s practices affecting millions of children.
What Exactly Are the Allegations in These Trials?
The New Mexico case is anchored in a legal concept called “unconscionable” conduct—a term that means something is so grossly unfair or unreasonable that a court should find it illegal. The state’s evidence includes the undercover investigation results showing that child predators could easily find and contact minors on Meta’s platforms. Prosecutors will argue this isn’t a failure of moderation; it’s a feature of the platform’s design that prioritizes engagement and growth over safety. The potential penalty structure is important to understand: if Meta is found liable for violations of the Unfair Practices Act, the company could face fines of up to $5,000 per violation. Given the number of New Mexico residents affected and the three separate counts, the state has claimed potential penalties could total in the billions. The California addiction case operates on different legal principles.
Rather than alleging that Meta violated a specific statute, the plaintiff’s lawyers argue that Meta’s design—particularly the algorithmic feed that shows content designed to keep users scrolling—is analogous to other product liability cases where manufacturers are held responsible for foreseeable harms. They presented evidence about how Meta’s internal research documents show company scientists understood that Instagram use was linked to increased mental health problems, particularly among teenagers. This is a powerful argument but also a challenging one legally, because it requires jurors to find that Meta acted negligently or recklessly in designing features it understood could cause psychological harm. Both cases also highlight how different legal theories can attack the same company. New Mexico focuses on deception and consumer protection; California focuses on product design and personal injury. A loss in one trial doesn’t automatically mean a loss in the other—they’re distinct legal claims.
What Does the Evidence Actually Show About Meta’s Practices?
The evidence presented in the New Mexico trial includes the undercover investigation records, testimony from Meta employees about how the platform’s reporting systems work, and testimony from safety experts about the prevalence of child sexual exploitation material and predatory behavior on social platforms. The state’s strategy is to show that Meta knew about these problems and chose not to address them sufficiently—a knowledge-and-inaction argument that’s more powerful legally than simply saying “bad things happen on the platform.” In the California trial, the evidence is heavier on Meta’s internal research and the psychology of platform design. Documents showed that Meta’s own researchers found Instagram use correlated with increased rates of depression, anxiety, and eating disorders in teenage girls.
The company’s response to these findings—according to testimony—was not to redesign the platform or add safety features, but to bury the research and avoid disclosing it publicly. This type of evidence (sometimes called “consciousness of guilt”) can be extremely persuasive to juries because it suggests the company knew about a problem and chose concealment over prevention. However, there’s an important caveat: Meta’s legal team will argue that correlation in research data does not prove causation, and that many teenagers with mental health issues exist independently of social media use. They’ll also argue that the company has made substantial investments in safety features and that young people are responsible for how they use social media.
What Could Go Wrong With These Trials From a Legal Perspective?
One significant limitation is that jury trials are unpredictable. Even with strong evidence, jurors may find that the legal standard hasn’t been met, or they may sympathize with Meta’s arguments more than expected. In the California case, for instance, jurors might struggle with establishing a direct causal link between Instagram usage and Kaley’s mental health problems—there could be other contributing factors, and proving that Meta’s platform was the primary cause is a high bar. Another warning sign to watch: if Meta wins in either trial, the plaintiff’s bar may face an uphill battle in similar cases. Conversely, if Meta loses decisively, expect rapid movement toward settlement negotiations in the thousands of similar pending cases.
The cost-benefit analysis changes dramatically with each verdict. There’s also the question of appeals. Neither verdict will be final immediately. If the jury decides in favor of New Mexico, Meta will almost certainly appeal, potentially tying up the case in appellate courts for years. Similarly, if the California jury rules for the plaintiff, Meta will appeal. These appeals can take a long time and can result in verdicts being overturned or reduced, so the immediate jury decision is important but not the final word.
What Happens After Closing Arguments and During Jury Deliberations?
After closing arguments conclude on March 24, 2026, the judge will issue jury instructions—specific legal guidance on how jurors should interpret the law and apply it to the facts. These instructions are often where legal battles continue, because both sides will propose different language that could influence how jurors think about the case. The judge will then send the jury into a deliberation room with a verdict form specifying the questions they need to answer.
In the California case, the jury has already been deliberating for over a week, which suggests they’re taking the case seriously and examining evidence closely. Jury deliberations are typically private, but judges can provide limited updates if jurors send notes with questions. The March 21 questions about Kaley’s background and damage calculations suggest jurors are seriously considering a verdict for the plaintiff—if they were leaning toward finding no liability, they likely wouldn’t be asking about how damages should be calculated.
What These Trials Mean for the Broader Meta Litigation Landscape
These two trials are not isolated incidents—they’re part of a much larger wave of litigation against Meta concerning child safety, mental health, and deceptive practices. Dozens of other states have filed similar consumer protection cases; hundreds of individual users have joined addiction and mental health claims. How these trials conclude will likely set the trajectory for settlement discussions, jury expectations in similar cases, and Meta’s overall legal liability exposure.
If verdicts come down in the next few weeks, expect significant movements in settlement negotiations. A loss for Meta in either trial could accelerate resolution of pending cases, while a win would likely stiffen Meta’s negotiating position. The legal landscape for social media accountability is still being written, and these two trials are helping define whether platforms can be held legally responsible for the harms their design choices enable.
You Might Also Like
- Social Media Addiction Trial Update: No Verdict Yet as Jury Deliberates Against Meta and YouTube
- Meta and YouTube Trial Update: Jury Decision Still Pending as of March 23
- No Decision Yet in Trial Accusing Meta and Google of Addictive Design
Open Settlements You Can Claim Now
Browse current class action settlements accepting claims — several require no proof of purchase: