As of March 25, 2026, a jury in Los Angeles Superior Court continues deliberating in a landmark social media addiction trial without having reached a verdict. The 12 jurors, overseen by Judge Carolyn B. Kuhl, signaled difficulty reaching consensus on at least one defendant after a grueling six-week trial featuring testimony from Meta executives and whistleblowers. The case centers on a 20-year-old woman from Chico, California (referred to as K.G.M.
In court documents) who alleges that Meta’s platforms and YouTube deliberately designed addictive features that caused her depression and social media addiction. This prolonged deliberation period is critical because its outcome will likely determine the fate of more than 2,000 similar lawsuits awaiting resolution across the country—making this one of the most consequential social media litigation battles to date. What makes this case particularly significant is the timing: just one day before the jury signaled difficulty, a New Mexico jury delivered a resounding verdict on March 24, 2026, finding Meta liable on all counts for child safety and exploitation violations, awarding $375 million in damages. This New Mexico breakthrough has intensified scrutiny on the Los Angeles trial and raised stakes for tech companies facing coordinated litigation from social media users and state attorneys general nationwide.
Table of Contents
- What Is Happening in the Los Angeles Social Media Addiction Trial?
- The New Mexico Verdict and What It Signals About Social Media Liability
- The Broader Litigation Landscape: 40+ State Attorneys General and 2,000+ Pending Lawsuits
- Why the Settlements of TikTok and Snap Matter for Pending Cases
- The Mental Health Evidence and Causation Challenges
- What Happens If the Los Angeles Jury Deadlocks?
- Future Outlook: Regulatory Pressure and Industry-Wide Implications
What Is Happening in the Los Angeles Social Media Addiction Trial?
The Los Angeles trial against meta and YouTube began with an intense six-week period of testimony that concluded with closing arguments on March 12, 2026. Jury deliberations officially began on March 13, 2026, and by March 21, the jury had moved into the damages phase—indicating they had reached liability decisions on at least some defendants but were now wrestling with how much compensation to award. However, by March 24-25, 2026, jurors communicated to the court that they were struggling to reach consensus on one defendant, creating a potential deadlock situation that could result in a mistrial on that count. The plaintiff’s case focused on Meta’s Instagram and Facebook platforms, alleging that the company knowingly designed features with addictive properties—including infinite scroll, notifications, and algorithmic feeds—to maximize user engagement at the expense of young people’s mental health.
The trial also involved YouTube, which faced similar allegations regarding recommendation algorithms that kept users watching content for extended periods. For the defendant facing consensus difficulties, jurors may be split on whether the evidence proved intentional wrongdoing or merely negligence, a distinction that could significantly impact damages awards. The deliberation process has become public through court filings and news reports, revealing that jurors are taking the case seriously and examining the evidence carefully rather than rushing to judgment. This deliberative approach, while time-consuming, suggests the jury is grappling with complex causation questions: Did Meta’s design directly cause the plaintiff’s depression and addiction, or were other factors involved? This question will likely echo through the remaining 2,000+ pending cases, as they will use this trial’s outcome as a precedent.
The New Mexico Verdict and What It Signals About Social Media Liability
On March 24, 2026—the same day the Los Angeles jury indicated difficulties—a New Mexico jury delivered a stunning $375 million verdict against Meta, finding the company liable on all counts for unfair and deceptive trade practices and unconscionable conduct related to child safety and exploitation. The New Mexico jury completed deliberations in approximately one day, a stark contrast to the ongoing Los Angeles deliberations, suggesting that the evidence of Meta’s liability was overwhelming and clear-cut in that case. The jury identified thousands of individual violations, underscoring the systematic nature of the alleged harms. What the New Mexico verdict demonstrates is that juries are increasingly willing to hold social media companies accountable for addictive design and child safety failures. The jury’s finding that Meta engaged in “unfair and deceptive” practices is particularly significant because it suggests the company made affirmative claims about safety that it knew were false, or deliberately concealed information about the addictive properties of its platforms.
The “unconscionable” finding—a high legal bar—indicates the jury believed Meta’s conduct was so egregious that it violated basic standards of decency and fairness. However, the New Mexico case differs in scope from the Los Angeles trial: New Mexico focused on child safety and exploitation violations, while Los Angeles centers on addiction and mental health harms more broadly. This distinction matters because courts and juries may view child exploitation differently than adult addiction claims. Additionally, damages awards can vary significantly by state and jury pool. The $375 million verdict in New Mexico provides a data point for what juries may award in comparable cases, but the Los Angeles jury may arrive at a different figure based on their assessment of causation and the plaintiff’s specific damages.
The Broader Litigation Landscape: 40+ State Attorneys General and 2,000+ Pending Lawsuits
Beyond these two trials, the legal landscape surrounding social media addiction has expanded dramatically. According to recent reports, 40 or more state attorneys general have filed or are pursuing lawsuits against Meta, claiming that the company intentionally designed addictive features that harm youth mental health. These state-level cases represent a coordinated attack on social media business models, with government entities rather than individual consumers leading the charge. The attorneys general argue that Meta’s practices constitute consumer protection violations and unfair competition. The 2,000+ pending individual lawsuits—many of which involve young people alleging depression, anxiety, eating disorders, and self-harm related to social media use—are positioned to move forward based on the outcomes of the Los Angeles and New Mexico trials.
In the class action litigation world, these two cases serve as “bellwether” trials, meaning their verdicts will likely influence how other courts and juries view similar claims. If the Los Angeles jury returns a substantial verdict for Meta’s victims, expect a flood of settlements as Meta and other platforms seek to avoid additional trials. Conversely, if the jury deadlock results in a mistrial or low damages award, defendants will gain use in settlement negotiations. The state attorney general lawsuits operate independently but reinforce the broader narrative: social media companies have engaged in systematic deception and harmful design practices. Unlike individual lawsuits where causation must be proven (Did Meta cause this specific person’s depression?), state AG cases focus on whether the company violated consumer protection laws through unfair or deceptive practices. These cases may prove easier to win and could result in injunctions forcing Meta to redesign its platforms, which would benefit all users—not just those in the lawsuits.
Why the Settlements of TikTok and Snap Matter for Pending Cases
Before the Los Angeles trial began, two major social media companies—TikTok and Snap—settled their cases rather than face a jury trial. While the specific settlement amounts and terms have not been publicly disclosed in detail, the fact that these companies chose to settle rather than defend themselves at trial is significant. Settlement decisions typically occur when companies assess their legal risk as unacceptable or when the cost of litigation exceeds the cost of settlement. The settlements by TikTok and Snap suggest that internal company documents, design decisions, and evidence presented during discovery (the pre-trial evidence-gathering phase) convinced these companies that juries were likely to find them liable. For other social media platforms and the remaining defendants in the Los Angeles trial, the TikTok and Snap settlements raise the pressure to settle as well.
If Meta faces a verdict in Los Angeles, other defendants may accelerate their own settlement discussions rather than risk similar jury verdicts. However, a settlement by one company does not guarantee comparable outcomes for others. Meta and YouTube may have stronger legal defenses, different design practices, or may have calculated that fighting the cases is more cost-effective than settling. Additionally, settlements often include non-admission-of-liability clauses, meaning a company can settle without conceding it did anything wrong. For consumers waiting for compensation, this distinction matters: settlements without admissions of liability provide less validation of their claims, even though they may still recover financial compensation.
The Mental Health Evidence and Causation Challenges
Central to both the Los Angeles trial and the pending cases is the question of causation: How do you prove that a social media platform caused a specific person’s depression or addiction? During the six-week Los Angeles trial, expert witnesses testified about the mechanisms by which social media can harm mental health—including social comparison, FOMO (fear of missing out), cyberbullying exposure, and the dopamine-driven design of notification systems. Meta and YouTube countered with their own experts arguing that social media use is correlational to depression, not causal, and that many other factors influence mental health outcomes. The plaintiff in the Los Angeles case, the 20-year-old from Chico, California, presented evidence of her own mental health decline coinciding with her increasing social media use during her teen years. She likely testified about specific harms: depression symptoms, sleep disruption, anxiety, and difficulty functioning in daily life.
However, the jury must determine whether Meta’s design features were the proximate cause of her harms or whether other factors—genetic predisposition to depression, social isolation, peer relationships, family circumstances—were equally or more responsible. This causation question is why the jury may be deadlocked: some jurors may believe the evidence clearly links Meta’s design to harm, while others may think it’s too speculative to attribute a specific person’s mental health crisis to a single company’s platform. In legal terms, this is the difference between “but-for” causation (but for Meta’s conduct, the plaintiff would not have suffered) and “contributing factor” causation (Meta’s conduct was one of several factors). Different legal standards apply in different jurisdictions, and the jury instructions given by Judge Kuhl likely define which standard applies, potentially explaining why jurors are struggling to reach unanimity.
What Happens If the Los Angeles Jury Deadlocks?
If the Los Angeles jury cannot reach a unanimous verdict on one or more defendants, the result is a mistrial on that count. In a mistrial, the evidence is essentially erased, and the case either goes to retrial before a new jury or the parties must renegotiate settlement. A mistrial does not mean Meta or YouTube “wins”—it simply means the case must be tried again or settled. Retrials are expensive, time-consuming, and carry the same risk: the new jury might convict or deadlock again.
Mistrials often lead to settlement pressure because both sides recognize the uncertainty. Defendants prefer to settle rather than retry a case with uncertain outcomes, and plaintiffs prefer a settlement over the risk of losing at retrial. For the 2,000+ pending lawsuits, a mistrial on one defendant might not significantly impact those cases unless that mistrial is on a key defendant. However, if the jury reaches a verdict against one defendant but deadlocks on another, the verdict becomes a powerful precedent while the deadlock suggests areas of weakness in the evidence.
Future Outlook: Regulatory Pressure and Industry-Wide Implications
Regardless of the Los Angeles verdict, the coordinated pressure from state attorneys general and individual lawsuits signals a shift in how society views social media company practices. Even if Meta prevails or achieves a mistrial in Los Angeles, the 40+ state AG cases will continue, and they operate under different legal standards that may be easier for government entities to satisfy than individual consumers must meet. Looking ahead, the most consequential outcome may not be the damages awards themselves but rather forced changes to social media platform design.
State attorneys general and future regulators may seek injunctions requiring platforms to remove infinite scroll, limit notifications, redesign recommendation algorithms, and provide more parental controls. These design changes, if implemented, would affect billions of users globally, not just the few thousand in these lawsuits. The Los Angeles and New Mexico trials are early battles in what will likely be a decade-long regulatory and litigation war over social media business models.