As of March 25, 2026, the jury in the landmark social media addiction case **KGM v. Meta & YouTube** remains in active deliberations and has not yet reached a verdict, despite being on day 9 of discussions. The jury has signaled difficulty in reaching a consensus against at least one defendant while progressing to the damages phase of the trial, meaning jurors are now considering how much money Meta and YouTube should pay if found liable.
This case, being tried in Los Angeles Superior Court, involves a 20-year-old woman from Chico, California, who claims that social media platforms’ addictive design features—including algorithmic feeds, infinite scroll, and unpredictable reward systems—caused her depression, anxiety, body dysmorphia, and suicidal ideation. The trial represents a critical moment in consumer protection law. Two defendants, TikTok and Snapchat, already settled with the plaintiff for undisclosed amounts before trial, leaving Meta (Facebook/Instagram) and YouTube (Google) as the remaining defendants facing potential jury-imposed damages.
Table of Contents
- What Does the Jury’s Current Status Mean for the Remaining Defendants?
- How Did TikTok and Snapchat Leave This Trial, and What Does That Signal?
- What Specific Design Features Are the Jury Evaluating?
- What Does the New Mexico $375 Million Verdict Tell Us About Potential Damages?
- What Happens if the Jury Reaches a Verdict, and What Are the Legal Implications?
- How Are Other Social Media Platforms Responding to This Litigation Risk?
- What Comes Next in Social Media Addiction Litigation Beyond This Case?
What Does the Jury’s Current Status Mean for the Remaining Defendants?
The jury has been deliberating since March 13, 2026, following closing arguments on March 12. On Monday, March 24, the jury sent a note to the judge indicating it was having difficulty reaching a verdict against one of the defendants—suggesting that while there may be agreement on liability for one platform, jurors remain divided on the other. On Friday, the jury indicated it had moved beyond the liability phase and was actively considering financial damages, a significant development because it shows the jury is no longer debating whether the defendants caused harm, but rather how much compensation is owed.
This progression is meaningful for the plaintiffs’ legal team. Normally, when a jury moves to damages discussions, it signals that at least some jurors have concluded on the liability question. However, the note about difficulty reaching a verdict against one defendant could mean the jury found one platform (either meta or YouTube) liable but is split on the other, or that jurors disagree on the degree of responsibility each platform bears. The ongoing deliberations suggest this case involves complex questions about comparative fault and the respective roles of different platforms in contributing to addiction.
How Did TikTok and Snapchat Leave This Trial, and What Does That Signal?
Before the trial even reached a jury, TikTok and Snapchat settled their portions of the case for undisclosed amounts. This settlement occurred early in the litigation process, meaning those platforms chose to negotiate rather than risk a jury verdict. Settlements often indicate that defendants believe the plaintiff has a strong case—settling before trial allows them to control costs and avoid the uncertainty and potential liability of a jury decision.
The settlements with TikTok and Snapchat mean the plaintiff already has potential compensation from two of the four original defendants. However, the fact that Meta and YouTube proceeded to trial despite settlements by their competitors suggests these companies believe they have stronger defenses or wanted to establish favorable precedent. Meta and YouTube may argue that other platforms share responsibility for the plaintiff’s harm, or that the plaintiff’s injuries resulted from multiple factors beyond social media design. This is important for consumers to understand: even if Meta and YouTube lose, the actual damages awarded may be divided among multiple defendants or circumstances, and the amounts these two companies owe could differ significantly from any settlement amount TikTok or Snapchat paid.
What Specific Design Features Are the Jury Evaluating?
The trial centers on several algorithmic and design features that the plaintiff’s legal team argues are deliberately addictive. These include algorithmic recommendation engines that learn user preferences and continuously suggest content, infinite scroll features that remove natural stopping points, autoplay functions that automatically load the next video without user action, and unpredictable reward systems—particularly the “likes” feature—that create intermittent reinforcement similar to slot machine mechanics. These design choices are not accidental; they are the result of deliberate engineering decisions made by Meta and YouTube to maximize user engagement and time on platform.
The significance of focusing on specific design features is that jurors are not simply deciding whether social media is bad—they’re being asked to determine whether Meta and YouTube knowingly designed their platforms to be addictive in ways that caused demonstrable harm to this specific plaintiff. Expert witnesses have likely testified about addiction psychology, behavioral design principles, and internal company documents that show whether Meta and YouTube understood the addictive potential of these features. For consumers following this case, the jury’s willingness to award damages based on design features would establish a precedent that companies can be held liable for implementing features they knew would build addiction.
What Does the New Mexico $375 Million Verdict Tell Us About Potential Damages?
In a related case that reached a jury verdict, a New Mexico jury found Meta’s platforms harmful to children and in violation of state consumer protection law, awarding a judgment of $375 million. That trial lasted nearly seven weeks, similar in scope to the Los Angeles case. The New Mexico verdict is directly relevant to the current Los Angeles jury because it shows that juries in different states are willing to hold Meta accountable for the addictive design of its platforms and to award substantial damages based on harm to young people. However, there are important limitations to drawing direct conclusions from the New Mexico case.
The New Mexico verdict involved different legal claims (violation of consumer protection law versus other liability theories), potentially different evidence, and a different jury pool. The damages in New Mexico were awarded based on that state’s specific legal standards and the specific harms alleged in that case. The Los Angeles jury may award significantly more or less than $375 million, depending on the plaintiff’s specific damages claims, the jury’s assessment of harm, the relative responsibility of Meta versus YouTube, and California’s legal standards. Additionally, if Meta and YouTube are found jointly and severally liable, the plaintiff could recover from both; if liability is apportioned, each defendant pays only its percentage share. The New Mexico verdict establishes that large damages are possible, but does not predict the Los Angeles outcome.
What Happens if the Jury Reaches a Verdict, and What Are the Legal Implications?
If and when the jury reaches a verdict, the trial outcome will likely have immediate implications for similar social media addiction cases pending in courts across the country. A verdict in favor of the plaintiff would provide a roadmap for other individuals harmed by social media to pursue similar claims, potentially opening the door to class action litigation or consolidated cases. Conversely, a verdict in favor of Meta and YouTube would bolster their legal defenses in pending cases and potentially raise the bar for future plaintiffs to prove liability and damages. One critical limitation: even a favorable verdict for the plaintiff does not guarantee payment.
Meta and YouTube have substantial resources to appeal an adverse verdict, and the appeals process could take years. During appeals, the judgment could be reduced, overturned, or affirmed at a higher court level. Additionally, if the jury apportions liability between Meta and YouTube differently than the plaintiff expected, or awards damages lower than anticipated, the outcome may not be as significant as some observers expect. The verdict is expected in spring or summer 2026, but any appeal would extend resolution well beyond that timeline.
How Are Other Social Media Platforms Responding to This Litigation Risk?
Beyond the settlements by TikTok and Snapchat in this specific case, major social media platforms are facing increased scrutiny from regulators and lawmakers who cite addiction concerns. The pending verdict in Los Angeles adds pressure on these companies to demonstrate that they are taking youth mental health seriously. Some platforms have introduced features like screen time warnings, reduced algorithmic recommendations to younger users, and default privacy settings intended to limit compulsive use.
However, these voluntary measures are often incremental and may not address the fundamental design incentives that drive engagement. TikTok and Snapchat’s decision to settle before facing a jury suggests these companies recognized the legal and reputational risk of litigating addiction claims. For consumers, this may indicate that even platforms introducing “safer” design features still face liability exposure for prior practices, and that settlements may become increasingly common as companies recognize litigation risk.
What Comes Next in Social Media Addiction Litigation Beyond This Case?
Regardless of the Los Angeles verdict outcome, social media addiction litigation is likely to accelerate. Multiple state attorneys general and plaintiffs’ attorneys are investigating similar claims against social media companies, and the legal theories being tested in Los Angeles—that addictive design causes demonstrable psychological harm—are gaining acceptance in courts. Additionally, regulatory bodies are developing proposed rules around social media design practices, which could eventually require platforms to change features or face penalties.
The Los Angeles case represents a critical test of whether individual plaintiffs can hold social media companies liable for addiction-related harms through civil litigation. A favorable verdict would likely inspire dozens of similar cases; an unfavorable verdict would not end litigation but might shift legal strategy toward class actions, regulatory enforcement, or legislative solutions. The verdict, whenever it comes, will be one landmark decision in what appears to be a prolonged legal and regulatory reckoning with social media’s role in youth mental health.