The landmark social media addiction trial in Los Angeles has not yet reached a verdict as of March 23, 2026. The jury in the case KGM v. Meta Platforms, Inc. & YouTube LLC began formal deliberations on Friday, March 13, 2026, and is still considering the claims nearly two weeks later.
This is the first state bellwether trial in social media addiction litigation—a test case that will likely influence thousands of similar lawsuits pending nationwide. A verdict is expected sometime in spring or summer 2026. The trial centers on allegations that Meta’s Instagram and Google’s YouTube engineered addictive features that caused documented harms to the plaintiff, a now 19-year-old identified as K.G.M. or Kaley GM, who claims she developed depression, anxiety, body dysmorphia, and suicidal ideation after joining these platforms at ages 9 and 6 respectively. This article explains the trial’s status, the plaintiff’s claims, the remaining defendants, recent jury activity, and why the outcome could reshape how social media platforms face legal liability.
Table of Contents
- What Is the KGM Trial and How Long Has It Been Going On?
- Who Is the Plaintiff and What Are Her Specific Claims?
- What Defendants Are Still in the Case and Which Have Settled?
- What Recent Jury Activity Signals About the Case?
- Why This Trial Matters: The Broader Legal Landscape
- What Evidence and Testimony Has Been Presented?
- What Could a Verdict Mean for Future Social Media Lawsuits?
- Frequently Asked Questions
What Is the KGM Trial and How Long Has It Been Going On?
The KGM trial is the first state-level bellwether case in social media addiction litigation—meaning it serves as a test case to help predict outcomes in similar lawsuits. jury selection began on January 27, 2026, and the trial itself commenced on February 10, 2026. The actual trial proceedings lasted approximately one month, during which the court presented thousands of pages of internal meta and Google documents along with testimony from the plaintiff and expert witnesses. Deliberations began on Friday, March 13, 2026, and the jury has not yet reached a verdict.
Legal observers expect a ruling sometime in spring or summer 2026, though jury deliberations can extend longer if jurors request additional testimony or evidence review. The Los Angeles venue was chosen deliberately to test addiction claims in a state with strong consumer protection laws. Unlike federal MDL (multidistrict litigation) proceedings, this state trial moves faster and establishes legal precedent more directly. The jury’s continued deliberation signals that jurors are taking the case seriously and carefully weighing complex evidence about platform design, causation, and damages—not rushing to judgment.
Who Is the Plaintiff and What Are Her Specific Claims?
The plaintiff, identified as K.G.M. or Kaley GM, is now 19 or 20 years old and filed the lawsuit alleging that Instagram and YouTube engineered their platforms to be addictive. She claims she began using YouTube at age 6 and Instagram at age 9. Over the years she used these platforms, she alleges she developed depression, anxiety, body dysmorphia (dissatisfaction with her body image), self-harm behaviors, and suicidal ideation—all of which she attributes to the design of the platforms themselves.
this case differs from general “social media harms” claims because the plaintiff’s legal theory focuses on addiction mechanics. However, a critical limitation exists: isolating which harms came specifically from platform addiction versus other causes (peer influence, family issues, school stress, or general adolescent mental health challenges) proved contentious during trial. The defendant companies argued that many adolescents experience mental health struggles unrelated to app usage, and that correlation is not causation. Expert witnesses for the plaintiff countered that platform features like infinite scroll, auto-play, algorithmic recommendations, and notification systems were deliberately engineered to maximize engagement and create dependency.
What Defendants Are Still in the Case and Which Have Settled?
Meta Platforms (which owns Facebook and Instagram) and Google (which owns YouTube) remain as defendants in the trial. However, TikTok and Snapchat both settled with the plaintiff before the trial began on January 27, 2026. Snapchat reached an undisclosed settlement, and TikTok’s settlement terms have not been publicly detailed.
These pre-trial settlements did not set a precedent for how much Meta or Google would owe, but they signaled that the companies viewed the legal risk as significant enough to resolve without a jury verdict. The decision by TikTok and Snapchat to settle before trial created a contrast with Meta and Google’s decision to litigate. Some legal observers suggest larger defendants may calculate that a jury verdict—even if unfavorable—creates a precedent they can fight on appeal, whereas a settlement becomes binding precedent across all similar claims. By going to trial, Meta and Google also had the opportunity to defend the engineering choices behind their platforms and persuade jurors that addiction claims lack legal merit.
What Recent Jury Activity Signals About the Case?
The jury began deliberations on March 13, 2026, and has since sent multiple notes to the judge asking questions about how to calculate damages if they find the platforms liable. This jury inquiry is significant because it suggests the jury may have already concluded that Meta and/or YouTube could be held legally responsible for the plaintiff’s harms—and they are now focused on determining the dollar amount. Damage calculations in social media addiction cases are complex: jurors must estimate lost wages, medical costs, pain and suffering, and potentially punitive damages if they believe the company acted with reckless disregard.
However, jurors asking about damages does not guarantee a verdict against the defendants. It is possible the jury is asking hypothetically or exploring multiple scenarios. A jury can return a defense verdict (finding the company not liable) even after discussing damages. The fact that deliberations have extended for over a week without a verdict also indicates complexity—jurors may be split, requesting evidence review, or debating fine points of liability and causation.
Why This Trial Matters: The Broader Legal Landscape
Approximately 1,600 or more lawsuits have been filed against social media platforms (Meta, TikTok, Google, and Snap) by families, school districts, and states. These cases allege that platform designers engineered specific features—infinite scroll, auto-play video, push notifications, algorithmic recommendation systems, and gamified likes/comments—to maximize user engagement and screen time, particularly targeting adolescents. The KGM trial is the first to reach a jury verdict attempt, making it a potential bellwether for thousands of pending cases. A verdict favoring the plaintiff could fundamentally shift social media liability law.
If a jury concludes that platform addiction design choices constitute a legal harm, it opens the door for thousands of similar claims to proceed. Conversely, a defense verdict would likely result in many pending cases being dismissed or settled for lower amounts. For this reason, legal observers across the country are watching the jury’s decision closely. A ruling is also expected to influence legislative efforts to regulate social media features, particularly those targeting minors.
What Evidence and Testimony Has Been Presented?
During the one-month trial, the court presented thousands of pages of internal Meta and Google documents that reveal how engineers and product managers designed features to maximize engagement and screen time. For example, internal documents may have shown discussions about “infinite scroll” design, which removes the natural stopping point of a page and algorithmically serves endless content. The plaintiff testified about her own experience in late February 2026, describing how she felt compelled to check Instagram constantly, comparing her own behavior and body to influencers, and developing anxiety when she didn’t receive likes or comments quickly.
Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg and Instagram head Adam Mosseri were expected to testify, likely defending the company’s position that their platforms are tools for connection and that mental health harms are multifactorial. The trial also included expert witnesses on child development, addiction psychology, and social media algorithm design. One key point of dispute was whether features like “Reels” (Instagram’s short-form video feature) were designed to compete with TikTok or deliberately engineered to addict adolescents—a distinction with major legal implications.
What Could a Verdict Mean for Future Social Media Lawsuits?
If the jury returns a verdict for the plaintiff, it establishes that social media platforms can be held legally liable for addiction-related harms under state law. This would likely accelerate settlement negotiations in hundreds of pending cases, as companies face the prospect of juries awarding damages in other trials. Conversely, if the jury finds in favor of Meta and Google, it does not end social media litigation but signals that addiction claims face significant legal hurdles and that other cases may need stronger evidence of causation.
Looking forward, a verdict in either direction will likely prompt legislative responses. Several states are already considering laws that restrict certain features on platforms used by minors or that require age verification. Federal legislation has also been proposed to hold social media companies more directly accountable for mental health harms. The KGM trial, despite its single-plaintiff focus, may become the catalyst for broader regulatory change across the entire social media industry.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is a “bellwether” trial and why does the KGM case matter?
A bellwether trial is a test case whose outcome predicts outcomes in similar pending lawsuits. The KGM trial is the first social media addiction case to reach jury deliberation, making it influential for approximately 1,600 other pending cases against Meta, TikTok, Google, and Snap.
Why did TikTok and Snapchat settle before trial started?
Both companies likely assessed the litigation risk and decided settlement was preferable to a jury verdict that could set precedent against them. Settlement terms remain undisclosed, but the decision to settle signaled serious legal exposure.
What does a jury asking about damages mean for the plaintiff’s case?
Jury inquiries about calculating damages suggest they may have concluded the plaintiff has proven liability. However, asking about damages hypothetically does not guarantee a verdict in the plaintiff’s favor—juries can still rule for the defense even after discussing damages.
When will the jury announce a verdict?
As of March 23, 2026, no date has been announced. Verdicts are expected spring or summer 2026, but jury deliberations can extend longer if the jury is divided or requests additional evidence review.
What features are social media platforms accused of engineering for addiction?
Infinite scroll (endless content without a natural stopping point), auto-play video, push notifications, algorithmic recommendations, gamified likes and comments, and short-form video formats (Reels) are among the features alleged to maximize engagement and create psychological dependency.
Could this trial result affect pending social media lawsuits I’m involved in?
Yes. A plaintiff verdict could accelerate settlements in other cases and establish legal precedent that platforms can be held liable. A defense verdict would likely make settlement and verdict amounts in other cases more difficult to negotiate.