As of March 20, 2026, there is no verdict yet in the landmark Meta and YouTube social media addiction trial in Los Angeles. A 12-member jury is currently in its sixth day of deliberations, focusing on damages after the court already found Meta and Google-owned YouTube liable for their role in the plaintiff’s social media addiction. While jurors sent a message to Judge Carolyn Kuhl asking clarification questions about their deliberation instructions, they have not reached a final decision on how much the platforms must pay.
The trial has captured national attention because it represents far more than one person’s case. A 20-year-old woman identified as Kaley sued Meta and YouTube claiming the platforms’ addictive design features contributed to her depression and suicidal thoughts. However, this case is a bellwether—a test case that represents approximately 1,600 similar lawsuits filed against Meta, Google, TikTok, and Snap. The significance of this trial extends beyond damages; it sets a legal precedent for how courts will hold social media companies accountable for the psychological harm their platforms may cause.
Table of Contents
- What Stage Is the Meta and YouTube Trial In?
- What Is the Jury Actually Deciding?
- Why Does This Case Matter Beyond the Plaintiff?
- What Could a Verdict Mean for Social Media Company Accountability?
- What Are the Risks and Limitations of This Case?
- Who Else Could Be Affected by This Trial?
- What Happens Next If There Is a Verdict?
What Stage Is the Meta and YouTube Trial In?
The jury has completed its examination of evidence and closing arguments and moved into deliberations. Unlike cases where juries spend days or weeks debating liability (whether the defendant is guilty), this jury’s task is narrower and more straightforward in one sense: meta and YouTube have already been found liable. The jury now focuses exclusively on determining damages—how much money the companies must pay. This is an important distinction because the liability question has already been decided by the court through summary judgment or prior rulings.
During their six days of deliberations as of March 20, the jury sent at least one question back to Judge Carolyn Kuhl, which is a normal part of the process. Jurors asked for clarification on instructions about whether they need to agree unanimously on the amount of damages or if a certain threshold of agreement is sufficient. These questions do not indicate confusion or deadlock; they reflect jurors working carefully through the legal standards they must apply. The trial lasted approximately one month, with all evidence and testimony already presented, so the jury is working from a complete record.
What Is the Jury Actually Deciding?
The central legal question the jury must answer is whether Meta and YouTube were a “substantial factor” in causing the plaintiff’s depression and suicidal thoughts. This is a more detailed standard than simple causation. Even if other life stressors—family issues, school pressure, or other mental health factors—contributed to the plaintiff’s condition, the jury can still find the platforms liable if they were a substantial factor. However, this does not mean the platforms must have been the only cause or even the primary cause.
The jury has heard testimony from the plaintiff, Kaley, about her usage patterns and mental health decline. They’ve heard expert testimony on how social media platforms design features to maximize engagement and time spent on apps. They’ve also heard from Meta and YouTube’s experts who may have argued that other factors explain the plaintiff’s condition, or that the companies cannot be held responsible for how users choose to engage with their platforms. The burden of proof in civil cases like this is “preponderance of the evidence”—meaning the jury must find it more likely than not that the platforms were a substantial factor. This is a lower standard than the “beyond a reasonable doubt” used in criminal cases.
Why Does This Case Matter Beyond the Plaintiff?
This trial serves as a bellwether case, meaning its outcome will likely influence how courts handle the approximately 1,600 other similar lawsuits pending against Meta, Google, TikTok, and Snap. Bellwether cases are selected to test the merits and damages range of complex litigation involving many similar claims. If the jury awards a substantial verdict, it could embolden other plaintiffs and their attorneys to push similar cases forward. Conversely, if the damages are modest or the jury struggles with liability questions, it might signal to other potential claimants that these cases face significant obstacles.
Notably, TikTok and Snap settled their claims before trial began, which suggests those companies chose to avoid the risk and publicity of a jury trial. Meta and YouTube chose to fight the case, betting that they could convince a jury that their platforms were not a substantial factor in the plaintiff’s harm. The verdict in this case will influence settlement negotiations in the remaining lawsuits. Companies facing similar allegations will look at what the Los Angeles jury decides and adjust their litigation strategy accordingly.
What Could a Verdict Mean for Social Media Company Accountability?
A verdict holding Meta and YouTube liable for social media addiction would mark a significant shift in how the law treats social media platforms. Historically, Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act has protected online platforms from liability for user-generated content. However, this case does not hinge on user-generated content—it centers on the platforms’ own design choices and features meant to maximize engagement. A plaintiff victory could establish that companies can be held accountable not just for what users post, but for how the platform’s structure and algorithms affect mental health.
If the jury awards damages, the question becomes how much those damages should be. A modest award—say, a few hundred thousand dollars—sends a different message than a multi-million-dollar verdict. The plaintiff’s attorney will likely argue for damages that include past medical treatment, lost income, pain and suffering, and potentially punitive damages intended to punish Meta and YouTube for their conduct. The companies’ attorneys will argue for the lowest possible amount, contending that the plaintiff’s own choices and other life circumstances bear responsibility.
What Are the Risks and Limitations of This Case?
One significant limitation is that this case applies only to the specific plaintiff and the specific evidence presented. Even if the jury returns a large verdict, it does not guarantee success in the other 1,600 pending cases. Different plaintiffs have different circumstances, different states have different laws, and different judges may rule on what evidence is admissible. A verdict for Kaley does not automatically mean victory for every teenager who claims social media harmed them.
Additionally, Meta and YouTube will almost certainly appeal any verdict against them. Appeals can take years, and appellate courts may reverse or reduce damages if they find legal errors in the trial. The companies have substantial resources to fund appeals, and they may argue that the trial judge made errors in instructing the jury, admitting evidence, or other procedural matters. Plaintiffs in the other cases should not assume that a verdict in this trial is a final win—the legal fight may extend well beyond March 2026.
Who Else Could Be Affected by This Trial?
Any teenager or young adult who claims social media platforms contributed to anxiety, depression, or other mental health conditions could be emboldened by a verdict in this case. Parents considering whether to pursue claims on behalf of their children may look at this verdict as validation that courts will take these claims seriously. Mental health professionals and researchers who have warned about social media’s effects on young people may point to this verdict as evidence supporting their concerns.
The broader social media industry is watching closely. Platforms like Instagram, Facebook, TikTok, X (formerly Twitter), Snapchat, and others that depend on user engagement and advertising revenue may face pressure to modify their design features. Even without regulatory changes, a series of liability verdicts could push companies toward features like engagement limits, better age verification, or warning labels—changes that could affect billions of users worldwide.
What Happens Next If There Is a Verdict?
Once the jury reaches a verdict on damages, the judge will likely poll the jurors to confirm they agree with the decision. The verdict will be read in open court and immediately become public record. Both sides will likely request a post-trial hearing to discuss potential appeals, motions to reduce or set aside the verdict, or other legal remedies.
Meta and YouTube’s attorneys will be preparing appeals strategies regardless of the outcome. In the months following the verdict, other plaintiffs’ attorneys will cite this case in settlement negotiations with Meta, YouTube, and other social media companies. The damages awarded—or not awarded—will become a benchmark for future cases. Legislators and regulators watching this trial may use the outcome to inform proposals for new laws governing social media design and platform accountability.
You Might Also Like
- Has the Jury Reached a Verdict in the Meta and YouTube Addiction Trial? Latest Update
- Social Media Addiction Trial Update: No Verdict Yet as Jury Deliberates Against Meta and YouTube
- No Verdict Yet in California Trial Targeting Meta and YouTube
Open Settlements You Can Claim Now
Browse current class action settlements accepting claims — several require no proof of purchase: