While a major Los Angeles civil trial jury continues deliberating in the social media addiction case with no verdict announced yet, Meta just suffered a significant legal blow in New Mexico. On March 24, 2026—just days before the LA jury’s expected timeline—a New Mexico jury found Meta liable for knowingly harming children’s mental health and concealing knowledge of child sexual exploitation on its platforms, imposing a $375 million penalty. The verdict demonstrates that courts are willing to hold social media giants accountable for their impact on young users.
The question of whether platforms harm children is no longer purely theoretical—a jury in New Mexico has already said yes, Meta did. The LA case remains the bellwether for thousands of similar claims, and the stakes are enormous. As of March 18, 2026, jurors in Los Angeles reported difficulty reaching unanimous agreement, signaling this case could drag on longer or require a partial retrial if deadlock occurs.
Table of Contents
- What’s Happening in the Los Angeles Trial Where No Verdict Has Been Reached?
- How Does the New Mexico Verdict Change the Landscape?
- How Many People Are Affected by This Litigation?
- What Evidence Did Experts Present About Social Media’s Effects?
- What About Snapchat, TikTok, and Other Platforms?
- When Will the First Verdicts Be Final and Enforceable?
- What Should Affected People Do While Verdicts Are Pending?
What’s Happening in the Los Angeles Trial Where No Verdict Has Been Reached?
The Los Angeles civil trial has meta and Google as primary defendants in a case involving allegations that their platforms deliberately addict young users to generate advertising revenue. Closing arguments occurred on March 12, 2026, after which the jury began deliberations. The verdict is expected sometime in spring or summer 2026, though the timeline remains uncertain. The judge has already warned that if jurors cannot unanimously agree on liability for at least one defendant, a partial retrial may become necessary—meaning even after months of proceedings, the case could restart on certain issues. As of mid-March, jury deliberations have encountered obstacles.
Jurors reported having difficulty reaching unanimous agreement on at least one of the defendants named in the case. This is significant because it suggests the evidence pointing to harm may be clearer for some platforms than others, or that jurors disagree on burden of proof and causation. In civil cases, unanimous verdicts are sometimes required depending on jury size and state rules. Unlike criminal trials where deadlock can result in a mistrial, civil cases in California can proceed with supermajority verdicts in some circumstances, but the uncertainty is adding weeks to what was already an extended trial period. Families waiting for accountability have no choice but to wait.
How Does the New Mexico Verdict Change the Landscape?
The New Mexico jury’s March 24, 2026 verdict represents the first major jury finding of liability in social media addiction litigation. Meta was found liable for knowingly causing harm to children’s mental health and for failing to disclose what it knew about child sexual exploitation occurring on its platforms. The $375 million penalty—paid by Meta as a judgment—validates the core claims that social media companies understand the dangers their products pose to young users but choose not to act. This is not a settlement where Meta admits no wrongdoing; this is a jury-determined verdict of liability. The New Mexico case tested whether expert testimony about addiction mechanisms and platform design could convince a jury that Meta acted with knowledge and intent.
It succeeded. However, one important limitation of the New Mexico verdict is that it applies to New Mexico law and may not directly transfer to other states’ interpretations. Other juries in different states could reach different conclusions based on their own evidence presentations and jury instructions. That said, the $375 million penalty sets a benchmark. If similar verdicts occur in the LA bellwether trial or in other pending cases, the damages could compound significantly across hundreds of lawsuits.
How Many People Are Affected by This Litigation?
As of March 2, 2026, the Social Media Addiction multidistrict litigation (MDL) includes 2,407 pending lawsuits. An MDL consolidates similar claims into one federal proceeding to reduce duplicative discovery and court burden. This means thousands of individual cases—many involving parents suing on behalf of children, or young adults suing over their own mental health problems they attribute to social media use—are moving through the system together. New York City itself joined the litigation with a 305-page complaint, bringing municipal authority and resources to the claim pool.
The scope of this litigation far exceeds what most consumers realize. When a social media user opens an app, they typically don’t know that Meta, Google, and other platforms have calculated the economic value of keeping them engaged—in Meta’s case, marketing research revealed the company valued teenage users at $270 each and created user “personas” targeting children as young as 9 years old. These weren’t designs to educate or inform; they were designed to maximize time spent and advertising exposure. That targeting strategy is now central to the legal claims.
What Evidence Did Experts Present About Social Media’s Effects?
Stanford psychiatry professor Anna Lembke testified in these proceedings that social media addiction can cause or worsen anxiety, depression, and suicidal ideation. Dr. Lembke’s testimony brought clinical and neurological credibility to what many parents have observed anecdotally: children who spend hours on social media platforms show signs of mental distress. Her expertise matters because it shifts the case from “users don’t like these platforms” to “these platforms are causing measurable psychiatric harm.” Depression and anxiety are treatable conditions, but they require intervention—and families may face significant medical costs to address harms they argue were deliberately engineered by the platforms. Marketing and platform design experts also testified about Meta’s internal strategies.
These experts revealed that Meta didn’t stumble into teenage addiction—the company calculated it, designed for it, and created “personas” of child users to target more effectively. Unlike a toy company that sells products to children with parental permission and clear age recommendations, Meta actively concealed its internal research on harm while optimizing for engagement with minors. This knowledge-versus-action gap is legally significant. One comparison worth noting: tobacco companies faced similar litigation for decades, and those cases eventually resulted in massive settlements and regulatory restrictions. The social media cases follow a similar pattern—documented knowledge, failure to disclose, and continued marketing to vulnerable populations.
What About Snapchat, TikTok, and Other Platforms?
Snapchat and TikTok took different paths than Meta and Google. Both platforms settled out of court before trial began, meaning they paid damages without a jury deciding liability. Settlement doesn’t equal admission of guilt in legal terms, but it does suggest the companies concluded that defending the cases was riskier or more expensive than settling. Their absence from the trial means the jury’s verdict against Meta and Google—pending in LA—will not have direct pressure from parallel findings of liability. However, settlements do suggest these companies recognized legal exposure and moved to resolve claims early.
This may indicate that even if other trials drag on, a broader settlement wave could eventually consolidate most claims. Regulatory action is also accelerating. Minnesota passed a law requiring platforms like Instagram to display addiction and mental health warning popups starting July 2026. This legislative response suggests regulators don’t intend to wait for the courts to finish—they’re already imposing mandatory disclosures that acknowledge the addiction risk. If other states follow Minnesota’s lead, platforms may face a patchwork of warning requirements even before major verdicts are finalized. For users and parents, this shift to regulatory mandates means change is coming regardless of trial outcomes, though litigation settlements typically provide direct compensation to harmed individuals, while regulations provide only future protections.
When Will the First Verdicts Be Final and Enforceable?
The first two bellwether trials in the MDL are scheduled for June 15 and August 6, 2026. Bellwether trials are early test cases chosen to help predict how similar cases will resolve. If the June and August trials result in significant verdicts against platforms, settlement pressure will likely intensify. Conversely, if plaintiffs lose in those trials, platforms may become more aggressive in defending remaining cases. The LA trial’s verdict—expected spring/summer 2026—could come before, after, or around the same time as the bellwether trials, creating a compressed window where major rulings dominate the landscape.
Once a verdict is reached, appeals are likely. Meta and Google have substantial resources for appellate challenges, meaning even a $375 million verdict or larger judgment in LA could face years of legal maneuvering. However, each appeal and each new verdict also represents use for settlement discussions. Most MDL cases eventually settle rather than proceed to individual trials, but settlements require both sides to accept financial terms. Plaintiffs’ attorneys typically push for maximums; defense counsel calculates liability exposure and insurance coverage. The New Mexico $375 million verdict is now a reference point in those negotiations.
What Should Affected People Do While Verdicts Are Pending?
For parents of teenagers who experienced mental health problems they attribute to social media use, and for young adults themselves who claim platform addiction worsened depression or anxiety, the litigation timeline matters for statute of limitations. Some claims are tied to when harm occurred; others to when it was discovered. An attorney specializing in social media litigation can determine whether your family’s situation falls within the MDL, whether filing a separate claim makes more sense, or whether settlement options exist. Documentation is crucial while litigation continues.
Keep records of mental health diagnoses, treatment dates, hospitalizations, therapy invoices, and any timeline linking a child’s social media use to psychological decline. If your case eventually settles or wins at trial, these documents prove damages. Additionally, monitor updates on the LA verdict and bellwether trials. Once those results are public, settlement dynamics shift rapidly, and your attorneys will need to advise on whether to hold out for a jury verdict or accept a settlement offer. The New Mexico verdict’s $375 million suggests defendants recognize significant exposure, which often accelerates settlement conversations.