A landmark social media addiction lawsuit is stretching into its second week of jury deliberations as twelve jurors in downtown Los Angeles weigh whether Meta and YouTube bear legal responsibility for a young woman’s depression and suicidal thoughts. As of March 23, 2026, the jury continues deliberating in the case brought by a 20-year-old plaintiff from Chico, California—identified in court documents as “Kaley G.M.” or “K.G.M.”—who alleges that YouTube and Instagram’s platform designs fueled mental health harm starting when she was just 6 years old.
The case represents a significant test of whether social media platforms can be held financially liable for design choices that allegedly prioritize user engagement over child safety. After approximately one month of testimony, closing arguments concluded on March 12, 2026, and jurors began deliberating the following day. The extended deliberation period signals the complexity of the case and the difficulty jurors face in determining causation—whether these platforms were a “substantial factor” in the plaintiff’s harm, even when multiple life stressors may have contributed to her depression and suicidal ideation.
Table of Contents
- How Long Will Jury Deliberations Continue in the Social Media Addiction Case?
- What Are the Plaintiff’s Allegations Against Meta and YouTube?
- Why Is This Case Called a “Landmark” Lawsuit?
- How Does This Case Connect to the TikTok and Snapchat Settlements?
- What Legal Standard Are Jurors Using to Evaluate Causation?
- How Are Courts Evaluating Social Media Platform Design as a Legal Liability Issue?
- What Happens After the Jury Reaches a Verdict?
How Long Will Jury Deliberations Continue in the Social Media Addiction Case?
The jury‘s journey into its second week of deliberations reflects the intricate legal and factual questions at stake. Twelve jurors tasked with deciding the case must determine whether platform features—such as infinite scroll, algorithmic recommendations, and engagement-based content promotion—constitute a substantial factor in causing mental health harm. In a civil trial like this one, jurors do not need to reach unanimous agreement; instead, nine out of twelve jurors must agree on each count for a verdict to stand, which is a lower threshold than the unanimous requirement in criminal cases.
This particular jury has already signaled questions and uncertainties by asking the judge how to calculate damages, indicating they are actively wrestling with liability questions. The extended deliberation period is not unusual in high-profile, complex cases involving novel legal theories. Some landmark product liability and personal injury cases have taken weeks or even months of jury deliberations when jurors must evaluate competing expert testimony and determine causation in cases without clear precedent.
What Are the Plaintiff’s Allegations Against Meta and YouTube?
The plaintiff alleges that YouTube and Instagram, both meta-owned platforms, fueled her depression and suicidal thoughts beginning in childhood. She contends that exposure to these platforms starting at age 6 contributed to her mental health crisis, a claim that challenges the common industry defense that social media is simply a communication tool and that other factors—family, school, biology, or personal circumstances—bear primary responsibility for mental health outcomes. The plaintiff’s case rests on the argument that platform design itself, rather than merely content moderation failures or isolated bad actors, is the problem. However, the legal standard jurors must apply requires them to determine whether the platforms were a “substantial factor” in her depression and suicidal ideation, even when accounting for other life stressors and contributing factors.
This is a critical distinction. The jury is not being asked whether social media contributed at all; they must weigh whether the platforms’ role was substantial enough to justify holding the companies legally and financially responsible. Defense attorneys for Meta and YouTube likely argued that other variables—including genetic predisposition to depression, family circumstances, peer relationships, school stress, or other environmental factors—played equal or greater roles in the plaintiff’s mental health crisis. The jury’s extended deliberation suggests they are carefully evaluating these competing narratives.
Why Is This Case Called a “Landmark” Lawsuit?
This case is described as a landmark test case because a verdict—regardless of which side prevails—could set legal precedent for thousands of similar lawsuits currently pending against social media companies. If the jury rules in favor of the plaintiff, it would establish that social media platforms can be held liable for mental health harms allegedly caused by their design features, opening the door for broader litigation. If the jury rules for Meta and YouTube, it would provide a significant legal defense that could dismiss or weaken many similar claims.
The case challenges a fundamental legal question that has not been definitively resolved in a jury verdict: whether social media platforms have a duty of care to protect children from harm caused by addictive design features. This is distinct from Section 230 immunity battles (which protect platforms from liability for user-generated content) because the allegation here focuses on platform design itself, not the content users post. A verdict in this case will signal to judges, legislators, and other potential plaintiffs whether the legal system views social media companies as responsible parties in teen mental health crises. Several other similar lawsuits are waiting on the sidelines to see how this case resolves before moving forward.
How Does This Case Connect to the TikTok and Snapchat Settlements?
Before trial began, TikTok and Snapchat (Snap Inc.) chose to settle their portions of this lawsuit rather than proceed to trial, a strategic decision that reflects their own risk assessment about the strength of the plaintiff’s legal claims. Settlement before trial does not indicate guilt or liability; rather, it reflects a calculation that the cost and risk of trial exceeded the cost of settling. However, the fact that these two major platforms chose to exit the litigation while Meta and YouTube decided to fight the case through trial suggests different legal strategies and confidence levels among Big Tech defendants.
The settlements with TikTok and Snapchat may influence how the jury views the broader social media industry’s responsibility for mental health harms. Jurors might interpret settlement as an admission or acknowledgment of risk, even though defense attorneys will likely instruct them that settlement does not constitute evidence of liability. From a legal standpoint, jurors are typically instructed to disregard settlement decisions by other defendants and evaluate the case solely on the facts and evidence presented by Meta and YouTube. However, human psychology suggests that the absence of certain defendants at trial, combined with public awareness of their settlement, could subtly influence juror perception.
What Legal Standard Are Jurors Using to Evaluate Causation?
The jury must apply the “substantial factor” test, a legal standard that requires determining whether the defendant’s conduct was a substantial factor in causing the plaintiff’s harm. This is different from asking whether social media “contributed” to her depression—the bar is higher. A substantial factor means the defendant’s actions played a significant role, not merely a minor or tangential one, in bringing about the harm.
If jurors find that while social media may have had some influence, other factors (family issues, personal biology, peer relationships, school environment) were equally or more significant, they would likely find the platforms were not a substantial factor and rule against the plaintiff. However, if jurors conclude that the platforms’ specific design features—such as infinite scroll, algorithmic content that amplifies emotionally intense material, notifications designed to pull users back into the app, or features that enable social comparison and cyberbullying—were fundamental to driving the plaintiff’s excessive engagement and mental health deterioration, they may find the platforms liable. The jury’s question about calculating damages suggests they are at least considering the possibility that liability exists and are preparing to assess financial compensation if they rule for the plaintiff.
How Are Courts Evaluating Social Media Platform Design as a Legal Liability Issue?
This case is part of a broader shift in how courts and legislators are examining social media platform design. Unlike early internet cases where platforms were granted broad immunity, courts are increasingly willing to scrutinize whether specific design features constitute negligent or intentional harm. The argument in this case—that infinite scroll, algorithmic recommendations, and notification systems are designed to maximize engagement at the expense of user well-being—challenges an industry practice that generates massive revenue through advertising.
From a practical standpoint, the jury’s extended deliberation may reflect jurors’ unfamiliarity with evaluating technical design decisions as legal harms. Experts likely testified about platform algorithms, user engagement metrics, and internal company research on adolescent mental health impacts. Jurors must translate technical evidence into legal conclusions, which requires careful deliberation. A specific example presented in trial may have been internal Meta research (which has been publicly reported) suggesting that Instagram’s features are associated with increased body image issues and anxiety in teenage girls—evidence that could support the plaintiff’s claim that the company understood the potential harms of its design choices.
What Happens After the Jury Reaches a Verdict?
Once the jury reaches a verdict, whether in favor of the plaintiff or defendants, the losing party will almost certainly appeal. Social media companies have substantial resources for appellate litigation, and this case will likely proceed through multiple appellate courts before a final resolution. If the plaintiff wins, she could receive a damage award; however, the amount would likely be challenged on appeal. If Meta and YouTube win, the plaintiff’s lawyers may appeal, and other plaintiffs’ attorneys will use the verdict to refine their strategies for similar cases.
Beyond this single case, a verdict will reverberate through pending litigation, legislative efforts to regulate social media, and industry practices. If platforms are found liable, they may face pressure to redesign features, implement stronger age verification, or create new protections for minors. Conversely, if they prevail, they will cite the verdict as evidence that their current practices are legally defensible. The fact that this case has reached jury deliberation in the second week—rather than being dismissed early in litigation—indicates that courts are treating social media platform design as a legitimate legal question worth pursuing to a jury trial.
You Might Also Like
- Social Media Addiction Trial Update: No Verdict Yet as Jury Deliberates Against Meta and YouTube
- Social Media Addiction Trial Update: Jury Still Reviewing Evidence
- Meta and YouTube Face Uncertain Outcome as Social Media Addiction Jury Deliberations Continue
Open Settlements You Can Claim Now
Browse current class action settlements accepting claims — several require no proof of purchase: