No, the jury in the Los Angeles social media addiction lawsuit has not reached a verdict yet. As of March 25, 2026, jurors remained deliberating on their 9th day in a landmark case against Meta and YouTube, with no decision in sight.
The case represents one of the first major courtroom tests of whether social media companies knowingly deployed “engineered addiction” practices that harmed a young user’s mental health—and the jury’s extended deliberation suggests they are grappling with complex questions about corporate intent, platform design, and liability. If you’ve been following social media addiction litigation or wondering what these trials might mean for compensation, this update explains where things stand and what comes next.
Table of Contents
- Why Is the Los Angeles Jury Still Deliberating on Day 9?
- Who Is Suing and What Are They Claiming?
- The Jury Deadlock Warning and What It Means
- New Mexico’s $375 Million Verdict Changes the Litigation Landscape
- How Is the New Mexico Case Different From the LA Case?
- TikTok and Snap Settled Before Trial Even Started
- What’s Next? Bellwether Trials and the Broader MDL
Why Is the Los Angeles Jury Still Deliberating on Day 9?
The jury‘s extended deliberations hint at the difficulty of the central question in this case: Did Meta and YouTube intentionally design their platforms to exploit users’ psychological vulnerabilities, causing measurable harm? This isn’t a straightforward product liability case with a clear defect. Instead, jurors must weigh evidence about algorithm design, engagement metrics, and whether internal company knowledge about mental health risks constitutes fraud or negligence. Judge Carolyn B.
Kuhl has already signaled concerns about potential deadlock on one of the two defendants, warning attorneys that if the panel cannot reach unanimity, the case may require a partial retrial. This is a critical juncture: a hung jury on Meta, for example, would mean no verdict and potentially a new trial, while a verdict on YouTube could stand independently. The extended deliberations reflect genuine disagreement among jurors, not simple deliberation—some panel members may believe the evidence proves intentional harm, while others may question whether design choices constitute legally actionable wrongdoing.
Who Is Suing and What Are They Claiming?
The plaintiff is a 20-year-old woman whose case centers on claims that meta‘s Instagram and YouTube’s short-form video features used techniques specifically designed to maximize engagement and keep her scrolling, contributing to severe mental health deterioration. Her legal team argues that both companies knew their algorithms and features were psychologically addictive and deliberately withheld that information from users. However, proving that design choices caused specific mental health harms is legally complex.
The plaintiff must demonstrate not just that she suffered depression or anxiety, but that Meta and YouTube’s actions directly caused that harm—and that they did so knowingly or recklessly. This is why the jury deliberations are taking time: establishing the causal chain between algorithmic design and individual mental health requires evaluating competing expert testimony, internal company documents, and statements about corporate intent. For comparison, tobacco litigation succeeded partly because cigarettes have an obvious chemical mechanism of addiction; with social media, the mechanisms are psychological and behavioral, making causation harder to prove.
The Jury Deadlock Warning and What It Means
When Judge Kuhl warned that the jury had indicated potential deadlock on one defendant, she was not suggesting the jury was hopelessly divided. Instead, this is a standard judicial intervention during extended deliberations—judges ask jurors to continue efforts to reach consensus while warning parties that deadlock is possible. If the jury does deadlock on one or both defendants, the consequences differ: a mistrial on one defendant means that defendant faces a new trial on the same claims, while success on the other defendant would stand.
A partial verdict is also possible. For instance, the jury could find Meta liable while deadlocking on YouTube, or vice versa. This outcome would give both sides something: the plaintiff would have a court ruling and potential damages from one defendant, while that defendant could pursue appeals, and the other defendant would avoid liability—at least from this particular jury. The judge has set no announced deadline for the jury to reach a verdict, suggesting the court is willing to wait rather than accept a premature deadlock.
New Mexico’s $375 Million Verdict Changes the Litigation Landscape
While the LA jury deliberates, a jury in New Mexico delivered a historic verdict on March 24, 2026: Meta must pay $375 million for violating New Mexico’s consumer protection law by misleading users about platform safety and enabling child sexual exploitation. This is the first time a U.S. state has won a jury verdict against Meta in a child safety case, making it a watershed moment for social media litigation.
The New Mexico verdict matters because it establishes that juries will hold Meta accountable in court—something that hadn’t happened before. The jury found that Meta violated state consumer protection law by misrepresenting the safety of its platforms and that the company’s practices enabled predators. The $375 million award represents the maximum allowed under New Mexico law, calculated as $5,000 per violation across thousands of affected children. While the state’s attorneys general had sought approximately $2.1 billion, the jury’s $375 million verdict still sends a powerful signal: companies can face eight-figure judgments when they mislead consumers about product safety.
How Is the New Mexico Case Different From the LA Case?
The LA trial focuses on personal injury and mental health harm to one plaintiff, whereas the New Mexico case involves alleged violations of consumer protection law and child endangerment across a broader population. This structural difference matters. In LA, success depends on proving one woman’s addiction and mental health harm resulted from specific Meta and YouTube practices.
In New Mexico, the state attorney general proved that Meta knowingly misrepresented platform safety—a lower bar because it does not require proving individual emotional or psychological harm. Additionally, the New Mexico case is progressing to a second non-jury phase scheduled for May 4, 2026, where the judge will decide whether Meta created a public nuisance and should be ordered to fund remedial programs like counseling or digital literacy initiatives. This remedy phase could significantly increase Meta’s obligations beyond the $375 million verdict. Meta has stated it disagrees with the verdict and plans to appeal, so the case is far from over, but the appellate bar for overturning a jury verdict is high—appellate courts rarely second-guess jury findings of fact.
TikTok and Snap Settled Before Trial Even Started
Not all social media defendants faced juries. TikTok and Snap both settled before the LA trial began, recognizing that defending against addiction claims in court carried substantial financial and reputational risk.
The exact settlement amounts have not been disclosed publicly, but both companies chose to avoid the uncertainty and potential liability exposure of a jury trial—a choice that underscores how seriously major social media companies view these lawsuits. The settlement strategy reflects a calculated legal decision: settlement amounts are typically lower than potential jury verdicts, but they offer certainty, avoid adverse precedent, and allow companies to move past litigation. By settling, TikTok and Snap eliminated the possibility of a high verdict but also potentially signaled to juries in the LA trial that they recognized some legal vulnerability in their platform design and addiction mechanics.
What’s Next? Bellwether Trials and the Broader MDL
The Los Angeles trial is part of a larger Multi-District Litigation (MDL) involving hundreds of social media addiction cases consolidated before a single judge. Once the LA jury reaches a verdict or deadlocks, courts will use that outcome to guide settlement discussions and trial strategy in the remaining cases. Additionally, Judge has scheduled two more “bellwether trials”—test cases that will go to trial—for June 15 and August 6, 2026.
These future trials will provide additional data about how juries view social media addiction claims. If the LA jury returns a large verdict, it will pressure defendants to settle other pending cases at higher amounts. Conversely, if the jury deadlocks or returns a defense verdict, it signals that addiction claims are harder to prove than plaintiffs hoped, potentially lowering settlement values. The New Mexico verdict has already shifted that calculus—Meta’s $375 million loss shows that at least one state can hold the company accountable in court, making it riskier for Meta and other defendants to bet everything on jury acquittal.
You Might Also Like
- Social Media Addiction Trial Update: Jury Has Not Reached Conclusion Yet
- Social Media Addiction Lawsuit Update: No Verdict Yet
- Social Media Addiction Trial Update: Jury Still Deliberating Without Verdict
Open Settlements You Can Claim Now
Browse current class action settlements accepting claims — several require no proof of purchase: