As of March 25, 2026, the jury in the landmark social media addiction trial against Meta and YouTube remains deadlocked after eight days of deliberations, with no verdict reached yet. The 12-person jury at Spring Street Courthouse in downtown Los Angeles has signaled difficulty reaching consensus, particularly against one of the two defendants, as jurors weigh compensatory damages in a case that could reshape how tech companies are held accountable for platform design and its effects on young users. This is not a case that will be resolved quickly, and the longer the jury deliberates without reaching unanimity, the greater the possibility of a hung jury—an outcome that would neither vindicate the plaintiff nor completely exonerate the defendants.
The trial pits a 20-year-old woman identified as “Kaley G.M.” from Chico, California against two of the world’s largest technology companies. After approximately six weeks of testimony, closing arguments concluded on March 12, 2026, and the jury has been working since then to determine whether Meta (Facebook and Instagram) and Google-owned YouTube designed their platforms in ways that knowingly harmed her mental health, and if so, what damages she should receive.
Table of Contents
- What Are the Core Details of the Social Media Addiction Trial?
- How Long Did the Trial Testimony Phase Last, and What Did Jurors Hear?
- What Is the Jury Currently Weighing, and Why Is Consensus Proving Difficult?
- What Could a Verdict Mean for Thousands of Pending Social Media Addiction Lawsuits?
- What Happens If the Jury Becomes a Hung Jury?
- Who Is Kaley G.M., and What Specific Harms Is She Alleging?
- What Happens Next, and What Should We Watch For?
What Are the Core Details of the Social Media Addiction Trial?
The trial is centered on allegations that meta and YouTube intentionally designed their platforms with addictive features that negatively impacted the plaintiff’s mental health. The case is being heard in Los Angeles County Superior Court before Judge Carolyn Kuhl, with a jury of 12 tasked with determining both liability (whether the companies are legally responsible) and damages (how much compensation the plaintiff should receive if they are found liable). The defendants—Meta Platforms (which owns Facebook and Instagram) and YouTube (owned by Google parent company Alphabet)—have denied the allegations and argue their platforms provide valuable services that users voluntarily choose to engage with.
Kaley G.M., the plaintiff, was a teenager when she began using these social media platforms. Her case alleges that algorithmic features designed to maximize engagement—such as infinite scroll, notifications, algorithmic feeds, and streak mechanics—created conditions that led to problematic use patterns and harm to her mental health. The case gained significant media attention because it is being treated as a test case that could establish legal precedent for thousands of similar lawsuits already pending against social media companies. A verdict finding the companies liable could open the door to widespread damages claims from other users alleging similar harms.
How Long Did the Trial Testimony Phase Last, and What Did Jurors Hear?
The testimony phase lasted approximately six weeks, during which experts, company executives, and the plaintiff herself presented evidence about how social media platforms are designed and operated. Experts for the plaintiff likely testified about the psychological effects of social media use on adolescents and young adults, the addictive potential of platform features, and the scientific research documenting harms to mental health. Witnesses for the defense presumably countered with their own experts and company representatives explaining the business rationale for platform design decisions and arguing that users maintain agency over their own engagement.
The closing arguments, which concluded on March 12, 2026, represented the final opportunity for both sides to frame the evidence for jurors. After these arguments, the jury entered deliberation with instructions on the legal standards they must apply—for instance, whether the companies had a legal duty to prevent harm, whether their design choices caused that harm, and what level of damages is appropriate. However, the length and complexity of the evidence, combined with the significant legal and factual questions at stake, has made reaching unanimity difficult for the jury panel.
What Is the Jury Currently Weighing, and Why Is Consensus Proving Difficult?
As of Friday, March 21, 2026, the jury moved beyond the liability phase and began deliberating on compensatory damages, meaning at least some jurors believe Meta and/or YouTube should be held responsible. However, the fact that deliberations extended into an eighth day with reported difficulty reaching consensus suggests the jury is fractured—some jurors may believe one defendant is liable while disagreeing on the other, or they may disagree sharply on how much compensation is appropriate. In civil trials, unanimous verdicts are typically required, so if even a single juror cannot agree with the other 11, the result is a mistrial and a hung jury.
The jury’s struggle signals that this case involves genuinely difficult questions about corporate responsibility in the digital age. One of the core tensions is whether platform companies have a legal obligation to protect users from the addictive potential of their own products, or whether users bear responsibility for managing their own engagement. Additionally, jurors must grapple with assigning a dollar value to mental health harms—a notoriously subjective exercise. A damages award that seems reasonable to some jurors may feel punitive or excessive to others, particularly when the amount could influence how tech companies design products in the future.
What Could a Verdict Mean for Thousands of Pending Social Media Addiction Lawsuits?
This trial is explicitly being treated as a test case for a larger wave of litigation. Thousands of similar lawsuits alleging that social media platforms have harmed users’ mental health are either pending or expected to be filed. If Kaley G.M. prevails, it would establish that social media companies can be held legally and financially accountable for design choices that prioritize engagement over user wellbeing, particularly for young users. Conversely, if the jury returns a not guilty verdict or deadlocks, it signals to other plaintiffs and their attorneys that winning such cases will be extremely difficult, potentially stalling the broader litigation movement.
The precedent-setting nature of this trial also means that tech companies and their insurers are closely watching. A substantial damages award could trigger a wave of similar suits and encourage settlements in pending cases. A defense victory might embolden the industry to resist further regulation and design changes. Neither outcome is predetermined; the jury’s current struggle suggests they are wrestling with genuinely novel legal questions that courts have not definitively answered before. This is why the trial has drawn national media attention despite involving just one plaintiff—the implications extend far beyond Kaley G.M.’s individual case.
What Happens If the Jury Becomes a Hung Jury?
If the jury cannot reach unanimity after reasonable deliberation time, the judge may declare a mistrial due to a hung jury. This outcome does not mean the plaintiff loses; rather, it leaves the case unresolved. In many hung jury situations, the plaintiff or defendant may choose to retry the case before a new jury, which would restart the entire trial process from opening statements through closing arguments. Alternatively, parties may settle rather than face another months-long trial. The plaintiff’s legal team would have to weigh the costs and risks of another trial against the possibility of reaching a settlement agreement with the defendants.
A hung jury also carries strategic implications. If evidence of the jury’s difficulty becomes known, it may signal to both sides that the case is genuinely close and unpredictable, potentially pushing both parties toward settlement negotiations. However, if the plaintiff’s team believes they performed well and the jury came close to a verdict, they may be confident enough to retry the case. The defendants, conversely, might view a mistrial as a partial victory and be less motivated to settle. There is no guarantee that a second jury would reach a different conclusion, making the stakes for retrials potentially high.
Who Is Kaley G.M., and What Specific Harms Is She Alleging?
Kaley G.M. is a 20-year-old from Chico, California who began using Facebook, Instagram, and YouTube as a teenager. According to her lawsuit, her use of these platforms became increasingly compulsive and problematic as platform features—designed to maximize engagement and time spent—pulled her attention and contributed to anxiety, depression, or other mental health challenges.
While the specific mental health diagnosis or symptoms she alleges have not been extensively detailed in public reporting, the case focuses on the connection between platform design and psychological harm. The fact that she was a minor when she began using these platforms is significant; many addiction and harm claims focus on tech companies’ responsibility to protect minors from exploitative design. Her case is brought under state law theories of liability, which may include claims that the companies’ conduct was negligent, deceptive, or violated consumer protection statutes. The trial process allowed her legal team to present testimony from the plaintiff herself, as well as experts in psychology, adolescent development, and platform design, to establish that a causal link exists between the platforms’ features and her alleged harms.
What Happens Next, and What Should We Watch For?
The jury will continue deliberating until they either reach a unanimous verdict or the judge declares a mistrial due to deadlock. Depending on the size and complexity of the deliberations, a verdict could come within days, or the jury could continue for weeks. If a verdict is reached, it will be publicly announced in open court, and both sides will likely hold press conferences to interpret the outcome. If damages are awarded, that figure will become a matter of public record and may influence settlement discussions in the thousands of pending similar cases.
The broader impact of this trial on tech regulation and platform design will unfold over months and years. A plaintiff victory could accelerate legislative efforts to impose stricter design standards on social media companies, particularly regarding features targeting young users. It could also inspire similar test cases in other jurisdictions or against other companies. Regardless of the verdict, this trial has already demonstrated that courts are willing to hear evidence about social media’s potential harms and that juries take such claims seriously enough to deliberate extensively. The outcome will shape the legal landscape for digital rights and corporate accountability for years to come.