As of March 25, 2026, the jury in the landmark social media addiction trial against Meta and YouTube has not yet reached a verdict. The jury is on day eight of deliberations in Los Angeles federal court, with the case paused over the weekend and deliberations resuming on Tuesday. The trial involves a 20-year-old woman from Chico, California, identified as “Kaley G.M.,” who claims that Meta and YouTube’s platforms caused her anxiety, depression, and body dysmorphia beginning in her teenage years. This is the first major social media addiction case to reach a jury verdict in the United States, making the outcome potentially significant for hundreds of similar lawsuits now pending across the country.
The jury has been deliberating since the conclusion of one month of testimony. While jurors have not yet announced a verdict, there are signs of disagreement: as of March 24, the jury indicated difficulty reaching consensus specifically on one of the two defendants. Additionally, on March 21, jurors asked the court about compensatory damages, a signal that they may have already determined liability on at least one platform.
Table of Contents
- How Long Will Jury Deliberations Take in the Social Media Addiction Trial?
- What Exactly Is the Jury Deciding About Social Media Addiction?
- What Does the New Mexico Verdict Mean for This Case?
- What Happens If the Jury Cannot Agree on a Verdict?
- How Common Are These Social Media Addiction Cases?
- What About Other Defendants and Settlements?
- What Comes Next and Why This Trial Matters for Future Cases?
How Long Will Jury Deliberations Take in the Social Media Addiction Trial?
jury deliberations in complex civil cases can range from hours to weeks, depending on the number of issues, the evidence, and how much jurors disagree. In this trial, the jury faced one month of testimony on two separate defendants and multiple claims of harm—anxiety, depression, and body image issues—which are inherently subjective and harder to quantify than physical injuries. Day eight is not unusually long for a high-profile case with two major defendants, but the jury’s request for damage instructions on day seven (Friday, March 21) suggests they are past the initial liability phase and now wrestling with the amount of financial compensation.
The potential deadlock on one defendant is noteworthy. If jurors have already agreed that one platform is liable but cannot reach consensus on the other, they face a choice: return a split verdict (finding meta liable but not YouTube, or vice versa), declare a mistrial on the disagreeing defendant, or continue deliberating. Courts typically instruct jurors to keep trying to reach unanimity, which extends deliberations. However, the jury’s willingness to ask about damages suggests they are not at an impasse—they are making progress on at least part of the case.
What Exactly Is the Jury Deciding About Social Media Addiction?
The jury is deciding whether Meta (Facebook and Instagram) and youtube knowingly designed their platforms in ways that addicted the plaintiff to excessive use and caused her psychological harm. The plaintiff’s core claim is that the companies were aware their algorithms and features (like infinite scroll, notifications, and engagement metrics) drive compulsive behavior, especially in teens, and that they prioritized profits over mental health. The alleged harms began in her adolescence and accumulated over years of use.
However, proving causation is the hardest part. The jury must believe that her anxiety, depression, and body dysmorphia were caused specifically by these platforms, not by other factors like genetics, school stress, family issues, or the general challenges of adolescence. This is where the case becomes legally complex: unlike a defective product or a toxic exposure case where the link is more direct, social media’s role in mental health is multifactorial and difficult to isolate in a court of law. For this reason, the jury asking about damages is significant—it suggests they believe causation was established to a sufficient degree, or at least that enough evidence was presented to make the companies financially liable.
What Does the New Mexico Verdict Mean for This Case?
On March 24, 2026—just one day before the California jury resumed deliberations—a jury in New Mexico returned a guilty verdict against Meta. That state brought a case arguing that Meta knowingly violated consumer protection laws by prioritizing profits over child safety. The jury sided with the state, establishing Meta’s liability in what amounts to a parallel case on the same core issue: whether Meta harms children’s mental health through platform design. The New Mexico verdict is significant for the California jury, though they may not directly discuss it.
The verdict demonstrates that at least one jury has already agreed that Meta is responsible for harms to young people. However, the cases are different in important ways: the New Mexico case involved state prosecutors arguing on behalf of children generally, while the California case focuses on one individual plaintiff’s specific damages. The California jury must not only decide liability but also calculate what financial compensation is owed, which is a separate analysis. The New Mexico case took nearly seven weeks to try, similar in duration to the California trial, and both involve the question of whether platforms designed algorithms and features to hook vulnerable young users.
What Happens If the Jury Cannot Agree on a Verdict?
If the jury remains deadlocked—unable to reach unanimity on one or both defendants—the judge may declare a mistrial. A mistrial means the case gets dismissed, but it does not prevent the plaintiff from suing again in the future. In practice, a mistrial often leads to settlement negotiations, because both sides understand that retrying the case is expensive and risky: the plaintiff might lose entirely on a retrial, and the defendants face the same jury pool and evidence again. Many high-profile cases that end in mistrials are subsequently settled out of court.
If the jury declares a split verdict—finding one defendant liable and not the other—that verdict stands. For example, the jury might determine that Meta’s algorithm caused the harm but that YouTube’s contribution was not sufficiently proven, or vice versa. A split verdict is still a significant outcome for the plaintiff, who would be entitled to damages from at least one defendant, and for the defendants who are found not liable. The judge can award partial damages based on comparative fault, or the defendants may appeal. This scenario may explain the jury’s early indication that they struggled with one defendant: they may be closer to agreeing on one platform than the other.
How Common Are These Social Media Addiction Cases?
The California case is the first social media addiction lawsuit to reach a jury verdict, making it a bellwether case—a trial whose outcome is closely watched by thousands of similar cases waiting to resolve. Hundreds of social media addiction lawsuits are now pending across the United States. These cases involve claims similar to the California plaintiff’s: that platforms caused adolescents and young adults depression, anxiety, self-harm, eating disorders, and other mental health crises through addictive features. However, not all defendants have chosen to fight these cases to trial.
TikTok and Snap settled before trial began, choosing to avoid jury verdicts. Meta and YouTube decided to defend themselves, likely betting that the causation evidence was weak or that juries would hesitate to blame platforms entirely for complex mental health issues. This difference in strategy shows a key risk: defendants who settle earlier may face less exposure, while those who go to trial risk a jury verdict that sets a precedent for all remaining cases. If the California jury finds Meta and YouTube liable, settlement pressure will intensify on other defendants with pending cases.
What About Other Defendants and Settlements?
Beyond the California case and New Mexico verdict, the social media addiction litigation landscape is fragmented. TikTok and Snap chose to settle their cases rather than defend them in court, signaling their own assessment that liability was difficult to defend. Meta and YouTube took the opposite approach, defending the California case vigorously. This creates an asymmetry: if the California jury finds Meta liable, TikTok and Snap—which already settled—may face increased pressure to increase settlement amounts, while YouTube and Meta may face larger verdicts across the country.
The broader context matters for anyone affected by social media addiction. Settled cases typically involve confidential agreements and non-disclosure clauses, meaning the public does not learn the settlement amounts or the companies’ admissions. A jury verdict, by contrast, is public, and the findings of fact and law become precedent that influences future juries and settlement negotiations. For this reason, advocates for social media regulation view the California case as pivotal—a jury verdict in favor of the plaintiff would be a watershed moment for holding platforms accountable.
What Comes Next and Why This Trial Matters for Future Cases?
The jury is expected to announce a verdict within the coming days or weeks, depending on whether they reach unanimity or declare a mistrial. Once a verdict is reached, both sides will likely appeal aspects of the judgment. If the verdict favors the plaintiff, Meta and YouTube will argue that the damages are excessive or that the causation was not proven sufficiently; if the verdict favors the defendants, the plaintiff will argue that the evidence supported liability and that the jury should have found the companies responsible.
Regardless of the outcome, this case has already changed the conversation. The trial exposed internal company documents, research, and expert testimony about how platforms are designed to maximize engagement, often at the cost of user well-being. The jury’s deliberations and request for damage instructions suggest that causation and liability are no longer theoretical—they are now real legal questions being weighed by citizens in a courtroom. Other pending cases will watch this verdict closely, and regulators, legislators, and the platforms themselves will likely use it to shape future litigation settlements, policy changes, and platform design.