As of March 25, 2026, the jury in the landmark Los Angeles social media addiction trial has not reached a verdict. The panel, which began deliberations on March 13, reported difficulty coming to consensus and requested guidance from the judge on how to proceed.
This monthlong trial, which started in early February, centers on a lawsuit brought by K.G.M., a 20-year-old from Chico, California, who alleges that Meta and YouTube designed their platforms with addictive features that harmed his mental health and development. The lack of a verdict does not mean the trial has stalled permanently—jurors are continuing deliberations, but the reported deadlock signals the complexity of proving liability in social media addiction cases.
Table of Contents
- Where Does the Los Angeles Jury Stand in Its Deliberations?
- Why Are Over 2,000 Pending Lawsuits Waiting for This Verdict?
- What Was the Key Testimony in the Los Angeles Trial?
- How Does the New Mexico Verdict Compare to the Los Angeles Trial?
- What Are the Biggest Obstacles to Proving Social Media Addiction in Court?
- What Are the Implications for Social Media Regulation Going Forward?
- What Should Consumers Expect in the Coming Months?
Where Does the Los Angeles Jury Stand in Its Deliberations?
The jury in the meta and YouTube addiction trial has been deliberating for more than a week without reaching a unanimous decision. According to court filings from March 17, jurors submitted notes indicating they were struggling to reach consensus on at least one defendant—believed to be Google/YouTube. The judge provided guidance after the jury’s request, but as of the latest reports, deliberations remain ongoing.
This is not unusual in complex civil cases involving multiple defendants and billions in potential damages; however, the jury’s open acknowledgment of difficulty suggests the evidence presented during the monthlong trial did not clearly favor either side. The jury must weigh testimony from tech executives, child psychologists, former engineers, and expert witnesses—some hired by the plaintiff and others by the defense—creating competing narratives about how algorithms and design features influence user behavior. The trial itself spanned from early February through mid-March, making it one of the most extensive jury examinations of social media’s impact on teen mental health. During that time, jurors heard arguments that Meta and YouTube engaged in unfair and deceptive practices by deliberately engineering addictive features, with specific focus on how infinite scroll, algorithmic recommendations, and notification systems were designed to maximize engagement at the expense of user wellbeing.
Why Are Over 2,000 Pending Lawsuits Waiting for This Verdict?
The Los Angeles trial is not an isolated case—it serves as a bellwether for more than 2,000 pending lawsuits across the United States. This means courts, attorneys, and defendants are closely watching how this jury rules. If the jury finds Meta and youtube liable, it could strengthen the legal arguments in thousands of similar cases. If they rule in favor of the tech companies, it may discourage some future litigation or lead to different legal strategies. This cascading effect makes the jury’s decision potentially transformative for social media liability law.
However, a verdict in the Los Angeles trial does not automatically resolve all pending cases—each lawsuit will still require its own legal proceedings, evidence, and potentially a separate jury decision. Some pending cases may settle based on the precedent, while others may proceed to trial with different facts or legal theories. The sheer number of pending cases reflects a broader shift in how the legal system is treating social media companies. For years, these platforms operated with broad liability protections under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, which shields websites from responsibility for user-generated content. However, this trial focuses on a different legal theory: whether the companies themselves violated consumer protection laws through their design and engineering choices, not whether they should be liable for content users posted. This distinction is crucial and explains why the New Mexico verdict in early March found Meta liable—the jury focused on the company’s conduct in creating addictive systems, not on moderation of user posts.
What Was the Key Testimony in the Los Angeles Trial?
Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg appeared in the courtroom to defend his company, marking the first time he has testified before a jury in an addiction case. His testimony provided a rare opportunity for jurors to hear directly from the company’s leadership about design decisions and the company’s approach to user wellbeing. The trial also included testimony from engineers and former employees who discussed how features like the infinite scroll and algorithmic recommendations were implemented and optimized. On the plaintiff’s side, expert witnesses testified about the neuroscience of addiction and how social media platforms trigger dopamine responses in the brain, potentially making them as habit-forming as gambling or substance use.
Child psychologists presented evidence about the correlation between heavy social media use and rising rates of depression, anxiety, and self-harm among adolescents. The plaintiff’s legal team focused on showing that Meta and YouTube had internal research demonstrating harm—sometimes called “the Facebook Files” or internal studies—and that the companies chose profits over user safety. The defense countered that social media use is a choice, that many people use these platforms responsibly, and that blaming the platforms for addiction overlooks individual responsibility and other contributing factors like family dynamics, mental health predisposition, and broader societal pressures. This fundamental disagreement about causation and responsibility is likely at the heart of the jury’s difficulty in reaching consensus.
How Does the New Mexico Verdict Compare to the Los Angeles Trial?
In early March 2026, a New Mexico jury reached a verdict in a separate social media addiction case, finding Meta liable and ordering the company to pay $375 million in damages. The New Mexico jury determined that Meta’s platforms—Facebook, Instagram, and WhatsApp—were harmful to children’s mental health and violated the state’s consumer protection law. This verdict came before the Los Angeles jury reached its decision, providing a data point about how juries in different states are assessing social media liability. The New Mexico case demonstrates that at least one jury found the evidence of harm and deceptive design practices sufficiently convincing to rule against the tech giant.
However, the Los Angeles case involves different facts, different expert witnesses, and a jury in California—a state with different consumer protection laws and different demographics. The Los Angeles jury’s hesitation to reach consensus suggests that the evidence in this particular case is more contested or that the legal arguments are more finely balanced than they were in New Mexico. The damages awarded in New Mexico ($375 million) also signal what financial liability might look like if the Los Angeles jury rules for the plaintiff. However, it’s unclear whether the amounts will be similar or vastly different, as jury awards can vary significantly based on how damages are calculated and what evidence about harm is presented. The fact that New Mexico has already produced a verdict may influence ongoing deliberations in Los Angeles, though jurors are typically instructed not to follow news coverage or discuss other cases, so the impact may be limited.
What Are the Biggest Obstacles to Proving Social Media Addiction in Court?
Proving that a company deliberately created an addictive product and that this addiction caused specific harm is legally and factually complex. First, there is the scientific question: does social media addiction exist as a formal diagnosis? While the American Psychological Association recognizes internet addiction as a serious concern, social media addiction is not yet listed in the DSM-5 (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders) as a distinct disorder. This means expert witnesses must explain addiction in terms that resonate with jurors, using neuroscience and behavioral research, which some jurors may find persuasive and others may not. Second, there is the legal question of causation: did Meta and YouTube’s design cause the plaintiff’s harm, or did other factors play a role? A 20-year-old with heavy social media use may also have genetic predisposition to depression, family stress, academic pressure, or peer conflict—isolating the platform’s contribution is extremely difficult.
Warning: Even if the jury finds the companies liable, the case will likely face appeals, potentially delaying any damages payment for years. Additionally, the loser in this case may appeal to a higher court, arguing that the jury’s decision was unjustified or that the law does not support this theory of liability. Tech companies have substantial legal resources and have successfully defended against many novel theories of liability in the past, so finality in this litigation is far from certain. Some industry observers predict this case could eventually reach the California Supreme Court or even the U.S. Supreme Court, given its potential impact on how tech companies can design consumer products.
What Are the Implications for Social Media Regulation Going Forward?
If the Los Angeles jury rules for the plaintiff, it may accelerate legislative efforts to regulate social media design. Lawmakers in several states and at the federal level have proposed bills that would restrict certain design features (like infinite scroll or autoplay), require age verification, or mandate parental consent for teen accounts. A jury verdict finding these features harmful could provide political momentum for such legislation.
However, if the jury rules for the defendants, tech companies may argue they have been vindicated and that regulation is unnecessary. Either way, this trial has already influenced how social media companies market their products and how they discuss user wellbeing publicly. Several platforms have introduced features like “time well spent” tools and screen time reminders, partly in response to addiction concerns raised in litigation and media coverage.
What Should Consumers Expect in the Coming Months?
Over the next several weeks or possibly months, the Los Angeles jury will either reach a verdict or report that they are hopelessly deadlocked. If they become deadlocked, the judge may declare a mistrial, and the case could be retried with a new jury, or the parties might settle the case to avoid a second trial. If the jury reaches a verdict, appeals are virtually certain.
Meanwhile, the 2,000+ pending lawsuits will continue moving through the courts, with some settling, some being dismissed, and some potentially proceeding to trial. The social media addiction issue will remain in the public consciousness, influencing how parents monitor their children’s screen time, how teens perceive their relationship with platforms, and how society debates the role of technology in mental health. As more juries grapple with similar cases over the next few years, a clearer legal and factual picture will emerge about whether social media companies can be held responsible for designing addictive systems, or whether individual choice and family responsibility remain the primary legal standard.