As of March 23, 2026, the jury in the landmark social media addiction case has not failed to reach a verdict—they are still actively deliberating. After closing arguments ended on March 12, 2026, the jury of 7 women and 5 men began deliberations on March 13-14 at the Spring Street Courthouse in Los Angeles. This civil case against Meta, Google (for YouTube), and originally TikTok and Snapchat (which have since settled) centers on allegations that these platforms deliberately designed addictive features that caused substantial harm to the mental health of K.G.M., a now 20-year-old plaintiff, when she was a minor.
The jury’s ongoing deliberations represent a critical moment not just for this individual case, but for thousands of similar claims pending across the country. The questions the jury has already submitted to the judge—including inquiries about the plaintiff’s family circumstances and how to calculate damages—suggest the panel is making progress toward a decision. A verdict is expected sometime in spring or summer 2026, with the potential to reshape how social media companies face liability for platform design choices.
Table of Contents
- What Evidence Did the Jury Hear During Four Weeks of Trial?
- How Far Along Are the Jury Deliberations Currently?
- Who Are the Remaining Defendants and What Exactly Are They Accused Of?
- What Could This Verdict Mean for Other Pending Social Media Cases?
- What Does a 9-of-12 Juror Standard Mean for This Case?
- What Questions Has the Jury Asked, and What Do They Suggest?
- When Can We Expect a Verdict, and What Happens Afterward?
What Evidence Did the Jury Hear During Four Weeks of Trial?
The trial involved approximately four weeks of testimony from diverse witnesses, including executives from meta and Google, former employees and whistleblowers who provided insight into internal product development decisions, medical experts specializing in mental health and adolescent psychology, and addiction specialists who explained the mechanisms of behavioral addiction. This substantial testimony period allowed both the plaintiff’s legal team and the defendants to present competing narratives about whether the platforms in question were deliberately designed to maximize engagement in addictive ways, or whether the companies simply built popular products that users chose to spend time on.
A significant aspect of the trial involved documentation and expert testimony about how social media algorithms work, how notifications are deployed, and how features like infinite scrolling and algorithmic recommendation systems are optimized. The plaintiff’s case centered on the argument that Instagram, YouTube, TikTok, and Snapchat intentionally created these mechanisms with knowledge that adolescents were particularly vulnerable to their effects due to developing brains and established psychological principles around reward systems.
How Far Along Are the Jury Deliberations Currently?
The jury began deliberations after closing arguments on March 12, 2026. As of mid-March, they are still actively working through the evidence and legal instructions provided by the judge. In civil cases like this one, the jury does not need to reach unanimity—only 9 of the 12 jurors must agree on a verdict. This lower threshold compared to criminal trials (which typically require unanimity) reflects the different legal standards between civil and criminal litigation.
The jury has already submitted questions to the judge during deliberations, specifically asking about the plaintiff’s family circumstances and how damages should be calculated. These questions are significant indicators that the jury is progressing through its decision-making process. When a jury asks detailed questions about damages calculation, it often signals that they’ve moved past liability questions and are focusing on the amount of compensation if they find the defendants responsible. However, jury deliberations can be unpredictable—these questions do not guarantee which way the verdict will go.
Who Are the Remaining Defendants and What Exactly Are They Accused Of?
Meta (parent company of Instagram) and Google (which owns YouTube) remain as defendants in the case, while TikTok and Snapchat have already settled for undisclosed amounts before the verdict. The allegations against Meta and Google are that these companies knowingly designed addictive features into their platforms, aware that adolescents were particularly vulnerable to behavioral addiction, yet failed to implement reasonable safeguards.
The plaintiff’s legal team has argued that the companies prioritized engagement metrics and advertising revenue over the mental health and wellbeing of young users. The specific features in question include algorithmic feeds that serve endless content, notification systems designed to pull users back to the app, like and share buttons that create variable reward schedules (a psychological mechanism known to drive compulsive behavior), and recommendation systems that prioritize engaging content regardless of its impact on viewers. For the remaining defendants to be found liable, the jury must determine that these design choices were not simply the inevitable result of building a popular product, but rather deliberate choices made with knowledge of the harm they could cause to minors.
What Could This Verdict Mean for Other Pending Social Media Cases?
This trial has drawn significant attention precisely because a jury verdict on the merits could establish important precedent for the thousands of similar cases filed against social media companies. Many other adolescents and their families have filed claims alleging similar harm from exposure to these platforms. If the jury finds Meta and Google liable, it could strengthen the legal arguments in those other cases and potentially accelerate settlements.
Conversely, if the jury finds in favor of the defendants, it could make those other cases significantly more difficult to pursue. However, one important limitation is that jury verdicts do not create binding precedent in the way appellate decisions do. Each case is technically independent, though a finding of liability in this high-profile case would certainly influence how other judges and juries view similar claims. The settlement reached by TikTok and Snapchat before trial ended—for undisclosed amounts—suggests that some defendants viewed the risk of jury liability as significant enough to justify settling rather than proceeding to verdict.
What Does a 9-of-12 Juror Standard Mean for This Case?
In civil cases, California law requires that nine of the twelve jurors agree on a verdict, rather than requiring unanimity as in criminal cases. This standard means the jury needs a substantial majority but does not need complete unanimity. Practically, this makes it somewhat easier to reach a verdict than in criminal cases, as holdout jurors who disagree with the majority do not have the power to force a mistrial through hung jury.
This threshold matters significantly because with a jury composition of 7 women and 5 men, the specific distribution of views among jurors becomes important. The jury instructions given by the judge will specify what legal standards must be met for liability, what elements the plaintiff must prove, and how damages should be calculated if liability is found. A 9-of-12 requirement means that verdicts reflecting broad (but not universal) agreement among the jury panel are sufficient to resolve the case.
What Questions Has the Jury Asked, and What Do They Suggest?
The jury has specifically requested clarification or information about the plaintiff’s family circumstances and about how to calculate damages. These questions are revealing in what they suggest about the jury’s thinking. Questions about family background often relate to causation—whether the social media exposure was the primary cause of harm, or whether other factors in the plaintiff’s life contributed significantly.
Questions about damages calculation typically arise after jurors have already decided that the defendant is liable, and they’re moving to the question of how much compensation is appropriate. It’s important to note, however, that jury questions don’t provide a clear roadmap to their verdict. Jurors ask different types of questions for different reasons, and what appears to be a question suggesting progress toward liability might actually be a juror group trying to fully understand all angles before deciding. The judge’s responses to these questions will also shape how the jury interprets the law and evidence available to them.
When Can We Expect a Verdict, and What Happens Afterward?
Based on the timeline provided by court observers and legal analysts, a verdict is expected sometime in spring or summer 2026. The specific timing will depend on how complex the jury’s deliberations become and whether they encounter any significant disagreements that extend the decision-making process. Once a verdict is reached, either party could file appeals if they believe legal errors occurred during the trial.
Following any verdict finding liability, settlement discussions for the thousands of pending cases would likely accelerate significantly. Defense teams would need to reassess their litigation risk in light of a jury’s determination, and plaintiff attorneys would use the verdict to strengthen their bargaining positions. The eventual resolution of this case—whether through verdict, appeal, or subsequent settlements—will likely shape social media liability law for years to come.