As of late March 2026, the Los Angeles jury in K.G.M. v. Meta and YouTube remains deadlocked after more than a week of deliberations, with no verdict yet reached in one of the most consequential social media addiction cases to go to trial. The jury began deliberations on March 13, 2026, moved past the liability phase to consider damages as of March 21, but reported difficulty reaching consensus on at least one defendant as of March 24. This trial is one of 2,000+ pending lawsuits alleging that social media platforms intentionally addict young users to maximize engagement and profit—cases that hinge on the outcome in Los Angeles Superior Court before Judge Carolyn B. Kuhl.
Meanwhile, on March 24, 2026, a jury in New Mexico returned the first verdict against Meta, finding thousands of violations of consumer protection law and awarding a $375 million penalty. This article explains both trials, what the verdicts mean for pending cases, and the path forward for users harmed by social media addiction. The significance of these trials cannot be overstated. For years, social media companies have faced criticism and lawsuits over their effects on young people’s mental health, but courts had not yet held them liable. Now, one verdict has been entered, and the deliberations in Los Angeles will set the tone for how juries evaluate evidence of addiction, platform design, and damages. The outcomes will likely affect settlement negotiations, future litigation, and how platforms operate.
Table of Contents
- Why Is the Los Angeles Jury Still Deliberating Without a Verdict?
- The New Mexico Verdict: What the $375 Million Award Means
- What the Los Angeles Trial Covers and Who the Plaintiff Is
- The Broader Impact: 2,000+ Pending Cases and Settlement Pressure
- Jury Deliberation Delays and Difficulty Reaching Consensus
- What Counts as Evidence of Addiction in Social Media Cases
- What Happens Next: Timeline and Next Steps
- Frequently Asked Questions
Why Is the Los Angeles Jury Still Deliberating Without a Verdict?
The Los Angeles jury has been deliberating for over 10 days, which is typical for complex civil cases involving competing expert testimony, technical evidence, and significant damages. Judge Kuhl acknowledged that jurors reported difficulty reaching consensus on one of the two defendants—likely reflecting disagreement over whether meta or YouTube (Google) bears more responsibility, or whether the evidence against each company meets the legal threshold for liability. In complex addiction and consumer harm cases, jurors often disagree on causation: Did the platform cause addiction, or did the user’s own behavior? Did the company knowingly exploit vulnerabilities, or did teenagers simply choose to use the apps? The deliberation process can stall when jurors are nearly split.
Some jurors may believe the evidence overwhelmingly supports liability against Meta and YouTube, while others may find the company’s defense—that parental oversight and user choice matter—persuasive. Alternatively, jurors may agree Meta is liable but disagree on damages. The jury has already moved beyond the liability phase to consider damages, meaning they likely found at least some liability; they are now negotiating the dollar amount. This is a critical distinction: no verdict doesn’t mean the case is failing—it means jurors are working through a difficult decision that involves holding tech companies accountable for the first time in a major case.
The New Mexico Verdict: What the $375 Million Award Means
On March 24, 2026—while the Los Angeles jury was still deliberating—a New Mexico jury returned a verdict against Meta, finding thousands of violations of the state’s consumer protection law and ruling that Meta’s conduct was “unconscionable.” The jury awarded a $375 million penalty and found that Meta’s platforms are harmful to children’s mental health and intentionally exploit minors’ developmental vulnerabilities. This is the first jury verdict holding a social media company liable for harming young users through addictive design. However, the New Mexico case was limited to Meta; YouTube was not a defendant.
This matters because it means the verdict doesn’t prove that all social media platforms are equally liable, only that Meta’s specific practices crossed the legal line in New Mexico. Additionally, the $375 million award, while substantial, represents a penalty under consumer protection law—not a damages judgment in favor of individual harmed users. Those individual users may still need to pursue separate claims or join class actions to recover compensation for their own mental health injuries. The New Mexico verdict is significant as legal precedent and as proof that a jury will hold a major platform accountable, but it is not automatic compensation for every person harmed by Meta.
What the Los Angeles Trial Covers and Who the Plaintiff Is
The Los Angeles case involves a young woman identified only as K.G.M., who alleges she suffered addiction and mental health harm from social media use. The case names both Meta (parent company of Facebook and Instagram) and youtube as defendants. Notably, Snapchat and TikTok settled before trial began, acknowledging liability and likely paying settlements to avoid jury exposure. The fact that some platforms agreed to settle while others chose to fight suggests varying risk calculations and possibly different internal evidence about their design practices.
K.G.M.’s case is not unique—the 2,000+ pending lawsuits share similar allegations: that platforms use algorithms designed to maximize time-on-app, use notifications and variable rewards that mimic gambling, hide or downplay evidence of mental health risks, and target young users whose brains are still developing. The difference is that her case went to jury trial first. If the jury reaches a verdict finding liability, even if damages are modest, it will establish a legal precedent that juries are willing to hold platforms accountable. That precedent will likely prompt settlements in many of the pending cases, since both plaintiffs and defendants will have a clearer sense of jury liability and damages expectations.
The Broader Impact: 2,000+ Pending Cases and Settlement Pressure
The Los Angeles trial is not isolated litigation—it is the bellwether case for approximately 2,000 pending lawsuits alleging similar social media addiction harms. A bellwether trial is one that is tried first, with the assumption that its outcome will guide settlement negotiations and jury expectations in similar cases. If K.G.M. wins a significant verdict, the defendants face pressure to settle many of the other cases rather than litigate each one. Conversely, if the defendants win, plaintiffs’ attorneys may struggle to find clients or funding to pursue similar claims.
The stakes for both sides are enormous. Meta and YouTube are betting that they can persuade juries that platforms don’t cause addiction, that users bear responsibility for their own choices, and that mental health harms are multifactorial. Plaintiffs’ attorneys are betting that evidence of algorithmic manipulation, internal research showing platform harms, and expert testimony about addiction will persuade juries to hold the companies liable. The delayed verdict in Los Angeles suggests the jury is genuinely grappling with conflicting evidence, not rubber-stamping either side’s position. This uncertainty itself may accelerate settlement discussions: both sides will recognize that the outcome is far from predetermined.
Jury Deliberation Delays and Difficulty Reaching Consensus
One known complication: the jury reported difficulty reaching consensus on one defendant. This suggests an asymmetry in the evidence. Perhaps the jury has decided Meta is clearly liable, but is split on YouTube/Google. Or vice versa. In a case with multiple defendants, juries can struggle if the evidence implicates them differently. One platform may have engaged in more aggressive algorithm design, while another may have had different marketing practices or age-gating controls. Jurors may feel confident about one but uncertain about the other.
Another complication is that jury deliberations in civil cases do not require unanimity in all jurisdictions. Some states and federal courts require a supermajority or even unanimity for civil verdicts, while others allow a majority. If California requires unanimity (which it does not—California requires only a majority in civil cases), a jury can return a split verdict. If the jury cannot reach even a simple majority on one defendant, the judge may declare a mistrial on that claim, requiring retrial on that issue. This is not uncommon in complex cases. A mistrial doesn’t kill the case; it means both sides will litigate again. But it does create uncertainty and expense.
What Counts as Evidence of Addiction in Social Media Cases
Courts in these trials are hearing evidence about platform design features that research associates with addictive behavior: infinite scrolling, variable reward schedules (unpredictable engagement metrics), notifications, metrics displays (likes and comments), algorithmic recommendations that prioritize engagement over accuracy, and targeting of young users below age 13. Experts have compared these features to gambling mechanisms and argued they exploit developmental vulnerabilities in adolescents’ brains, specifically the reward system and impulse control. However, the companies argue that user choice, family oversight, and individual differences matter.
Not every user becomes addicted; many can use the platforms without mental health consequences. The burden on plaintiffs is to show a causal link: that the platform’s design—not just the user’s choice—caused the alleged harm. This is why the New Mexico verdict finding Meta’s conduct “unconscionable” and harmful is so significant. It signals that a jury accepted evidence that the company deliberately exploited minors, not merely that the platforms happen to be engaging.
What Happens Next: Timeline and Next Steps
If the Los Angeles jury reaches a verdict in the coming days or weeks, both sides will evaluate whether to appeal or seek settlement in the pending cases. If K.G.M. wins, settlements will likely accelerate. If she loses, plaintiffs’ attorneys will regroup and assess whether the evidence needs to be strengthened, the law clarified, or the targets shifted to other defendants. Either way, the New Mexico verdict provides a foundation: juries have now shown they will hold social media companies liable for child harm.
The broader litigation landscape is shifting. Regulators are also investigating social media companies for their effects on youth mental health. The Federal Trade Commission has taken action against Instagram, TikTok, and other platforms. These regulatory cases move in parallel to private litigation and can inform each other. The combination of jury verdicts, regulatory enforcement, and legislation (like bills restricting data collection from minors) is creating pressure on platforms to change their practices. The Los Angeles verdict, whenever it comes, will be a major data point in that larger reckoning.
Frequently Asked Questions
Does the New Mexico verdict mean I can automatically get compensation?
No. The New Mexico verdict is a penalty against Meta under consumer protection law, but it does not directly compensate individual harmed users. You would need to pursue a separate claim, either as part of a class action or individually, to seek damages for your own mental health injuries. Consult an attorney about your options.
What if the Los Angeles jury never reaches a verdict?
If the jury cannot reach a verdict (a mistrial), the case may be retried, settled, or dismissed depending on the judge’s ruling and the parties’ decisions. A mistrial is not a loss for either side; it means the trial process did not produce a verdict, and the case may proceed differently.
How long do I have to file a claim if I was harmed by social media?
The statute of limitations varies by state and claim type, but generally ranges from one to three years from when you discovered the harm. Do not delay; consult an attorney immediately to determine your deadline.
Can I join the Los Angeles case or the New Mexico case?
The Los Angeles and New Mexico cases are already filed and may be closed to new individual plaintiffs. However, there are 2,000+ other pending lawsuits with similar allegations. You can explore joining one of those cases or filing a new claim. An attorney can advise which option is best for you.
What if I’m under 18 now? Can I still sue for past social media harm?
Yes, you can pursue a claim for harm you suffered as a minor. Your state’s statute of limitations for product liability or consumer protection claims will apply. Some states toll (pause) the statute of limitations until you reach age 18, giving you additional time. Consult an attorney in your state.
What is the difference between a verdict and a settlement?
A verdict is a jury’s decision reached at the end of a trial. A settlement is an agreement between the parties, usually made before trial, where one side agrees to pay compensation in exchange for the other side dropping the claim. Settlements are typically confidential and do not set legal precedent, while verdicts are public and guide future cases.
You Might Also Like
- Social Media Addiction Trial Continues Without Jury Verdict
- Social Media Addiction Trial Update: Jury Has Not Reached Verdict
- Social Media Addiction Trial Update: Jury Still Deliberating