A jury in a landmark social media addiction case has signaled it cannot reach consensus on one of two defendants—Meta or YouTube—after more than a week of deliberations, as of March 24, 2026. The Los Angeles Superior Court case centers on a 20-year-old woman from Chico, California, identified in court documents as K.G.M. and referred to as “Kaley,” who claims she became compulsively addicted to YouTube starting at age 6 and later to Instagram at age 9.
With the jury now at an impasse, Judge Carolyn B. Kuhl has directed jurors to continue their work, warning that a deadlock would require the entire trial to be retried with a new jury—a costly and time-consuming outcome for all parties involved. We’ll also explore what happens next, how similar cases are being resolved, and what this means for people who believe they’ve been harmed by social media design practices.
Table of Contents
- What Does the Jury Deadlock Mean for This Social Media Addiction Trial?
- The Long Road to the Jury’s Decision
- Who Is the Plaintiff and What Is Her Case?
- Why Did Other Platforms Settle While Meta and YouTube Went to Trial?
- What Happens If the Jury Remains Deadlocked?
- The Broader Landscape of Social Media Addiction Litigation
- When Should You Expect a Final Resolution?
What Does the Jury Deadlock Mean for This Social Media Addiction Trial?
When a jury cannot reach consensus, it typically signals deep disagreement among jurors about whether the evidence meets the legal threshold to hold a defendant liable. In this case, the jury signaled inability to agree on one of the two defendants—either meta or YouTube—after closing arguments concluded on March 12, 2026, and deliberations began the morning of March 13, 2026. The jury spent more than a week attempting to reach a verdict before reporting the impasse to the judge.
Judge Kuhl’s response was to issue what’s known as a “deadlock admonition” or “Allen charge,” instructing jurors to continue deliberating and emphasizing the burden and expense of a retrial. This instruction puts pressure on jurors to work toward consensus but does not force them to abandon their convictions. If jurors remain unable to agree despite this instruction, the judge may declare a mistrial, which would nullify the entire six-week trial and require the case to start over with a new jury—an outcome that would delay justice and significantly increase litigation costs for all parties.
The Long Road to the Jury’s Decision
The trial itself lasted approximately six weeks, with testimony from addiction experts, mental health professionals, platform engineers, and corporate executives. This extended timeline reflects the complexity of proving causation between platform design and addiction—lawyers had to present evidence about how features like infinite scroll, algorithmic recommendation engines, and notification systems were designed and whether they specifically targeted young users to maximize engagement. The verdict depends on jurors understanding highly technical and psychological expert testimony and applying it to legal standards that are still being developed in this area of law.
However, a jury deadlock on one defendant doesn’t necessarily mean the jury has reached agreement on the other. The jury’s inability to reach consensus on either Meta or YouTube could reflect different strengths of evidence against each platform. For instance, the plaintiff argued that both platforms used addictive design practices, but evidence of intentional wrongdoing or reckless disregard may have been stronger or weaker for one defendant than the other. If the jury has reached a verdict on one defendant while deadlocking on the other, that partial verdict would still stand, though the outcome on the deadlocked defendant would require a new trial.
Who Is the Plaintiff and What Is Her Case?
The plaintiff, identified as “Kaley” in public filings, filed suit claiming she became compulsively addicted to YouTube at age 6 and later to Instagram at age 9. Her case argues that Meta and YouTube deliberately designed their platforms with features intended to maximize user engagement without regard for the addictive potential or harm to developing brains. As a minor, she had no ability to consent to or understand the neurological impact of these design choices.
The case is significant because it targets the underlying business model of social media platforms—engagement-driven algorithms and notifications that keep users scrolling. Unlike cases that argue social media caused specific harms like depression or anxiety, this case attacks the addiction mechanism itself. The plaintiff argues that the platforms’ intentional design practices caused her to develop an addiction that persisted into adulthood, affecting her education, relationships, and mental health. This framing, if successful, could establish that platforms have a legal duty to avoid deliberately addictive design when targeting or knowingly affecting minors.
Why Did Other Platforms Settle While Meta and YouTube Went to Trial?
Before the trial began, TikTok and Snap reached confidential settlements with the plaintiff, choosing to resolve the case rather than face a jury verdict. These settlements, while confidential, signal that those platforms believed the legal risk was substantial enough to warrant negotiating a resolution. By contrast, Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg and YouTube made the strategic decision to proceed to trial, presumably believing they could successfully defend against the addiction allegations or limit damages through jury arguments. The decision to settle versus litigate often reflects how a company views its legal exposure and public relations risk.
Settling avoids the uncertainty of a jury verdict and public testimony from company executives—Zuckerberg’s decision to go to trial meant he and other Meta executives took the stand to defend the company’s practices. A jury verdict, even if favorable to the defendants, becomes public record and shapes how regulators, legislators, and future plaintiffs view the case. A favorable settlement remains confidential and out of the public eye. The fact that TikTok and Snap preferred settlement suggests the addiction claim has real legal merit, which may explain the jury’s current difficulty in reaching consensus.
What Happens If the Jury Remains Deadlocked?
If the jury cannot reach consensus even after Judge Kuhl’s instruction to continue deliberating, the judge will declare a mistrial. A mistrial means the case will be retried from the beginning with a new jury—jurors, witnesses, expert testimony, and all. This is expensive and time-consuming for all parties. The plaintiff would have to wait potentially years before seeing a new verdict, and both Meta and YouTube would face another full trial rather than a final resolution. One critical limitation of a mistrial is that it doesn’t reset the legal landscape.
Both sides learned from the first trial—what evidence was effective, what jurors struggled with, which expert witnesses were credible, which arguments resonated. In a retrial, both the plaintiff’s legal team and the defendants’ lawyers will refine their strategies based on what they observed in the first trial. Additionally, while a retrial is ongoing, other similar cases may move forward, potentially setting precedents that affect how a jury might view the evidence in the second trial. For the plaintiff, a retrial is a significant delay, but it also means another opportunity to convince a jury of her claims. For the defendants, it means facing the addiction liability question again, with no guarantee the outcome will be different.
The Broader Landscape of Social Media Addiction Litigation
This case is part of a larger wave of litigation against social media platforms over their effects on minors. Thousands of similar cases are pending across the country, and the outcome of this trial is expected to influence how future cases proceed and what legal standards courts will apply to addiction claims. Some cases focus on specific harms like depression, anxiety, or self-harm, while others, like this one, target the addiction mechanism itself.
The fact that TikTok and Snap settled confidentially before trial suggests that future plaintiffs and their attorneys view litigation as a viable strategy to extract settlements from platforms. If Meta and YouTube’s case results in a plaintiff verdict, the legal landscape shifts dramatically—other companies would face much greater pressure to settle similar claims. Conversely, if the jury eventually returns a verdict favoring the defendants, platforms will have a stronger defense in future litigation. The stakes are enormous, which explains why Meta and YouTube chose to contest the case rather than negotiate a settlement.
When Should You Expect a Final Resolution?
The judge has not announced a specific deadline for the jury to reach a verdict, but based on the current timeline, a final resolution is expected in the spring or summer of 2026. If the jury deadlocks and a mistrial is declared, the timeline for a retrial would extend into 2027 at the earliest. During this waiting period, regulatory agencies are also watching closely—state attorneys general and the Federal Trade Commission have already scrutinized social media platforms’ practices toward minors, and a jury verdict in this case could prompt additional investigation or regulatory action.
If you believe you or a family member has been harmed by social media addiction, this case’s outcome may directly affect your legal options. Some settlements in related cases have already been reached, while others remain pending. Understanding the status of litigation in your jurisdiction will help determine whether you can pursue a claim or whether settlements have already closed.
You Might Also Like
- Social Media Addiction Case Update as Jury Deliberations Continue
- Jury Remains Undecided in Case Alleging Social Media Harm
- Social Media Addiction Case Still Pending as Jury Deliberates
Open Settlements You Can Claim Now
Browse current class action settlements accepting claims — several require no proof of purchase: