The jury in a landmark social media addiction trial against Meta and Google has signalled it is struggling to reach a consensus on liability, raising the prospect of a mistrial in the closely watched case over teen mental health harms. On 23 March 2026, the Los Angeles jury notified Judge Carolyn B. Kuhl that it was having difficulty agreeing with respect to one of the defendants, though it did not specify whether Meta (Instagram/Facebook) or Google (YouTube) was the sticking point.
This development comes after more than a week of deliberations in the bellwether case brought by a California teen alleging the platforms designed addictive features that exacerbated her depression, body dysmorphia and suicidal ideation.
Social Media Addiction Lawsuit: Jury Deadlock in LA Teen Trial
Deliberations began on 13 March 2026 following a month‑long trial in Los Angeles Superior Court, where plaintiff “K.G.M.” (referred to as Kaley in some coverage) testified that her heavy use of Instagram from age nine and YouTube from age six contributed to severe mental health struggles. The jury’s note to the judge marks the first public indication of a potential split, with Reuters reporting that the panel is “having difficulty coming to a consensus” on at least one defendant.
Judge Kuhl instructed the jury to continue deliberating and strive for a verdict if possible, but warned that failure to reach unanimity would necessitate a retrial with a new jury. Jurors are scheduled to return on Thursday, 26 March, amid speculation that the deadlock centres on questions of causation and foreseeable harm to minors.
Meta, Google on Trial: Teen Alleges Platforms Caused Mental Health Harm
The plaintiff, now 20, claims Meta and Google negligently designed their platforms with addictive features—such as infinite scrolls, notifications and algorithmic feeds—that exploited children’s vulnerabilities for profit, leading to her depression, eating disorders and psychiatric hospitalisations. Internal documents and expert testimony during the trial highlighted research showing platforms knew of risks to young users but prioritised engagement metrics.
Defence attorneys for Meta and Google argued that the plaintiff’s issues stemmed primarily from family dysfunction, bullying and pre‑existing trauma, not social media use, and that no platform can control user behaviour or external factors. Meta’s counsel Paul Schmidt emphasised during closing arguments that “the facts don’t allow” blaming Instagram for the plaintiff’s struggles, pointing to her medical records and home environment.
The jury form requires unanimous agreement on whether each company knew or should have known its platform posed risks to children, was negligent in design, and was a “substantial factor” in the plaintiff’s harms—followed by damage calculations if liability is found.
Bellwether Case: Social Media Addiction Trial Sets Precedent for Hundreds of Suits
This trial is the first of several bellwether cases in a wave of over 500 lawsuits against social media giants, including TikTok (which settled a similar claim pre‑trial for an undisclosed sum). Outcomes here could influence settlements, design mandates and liability standards for claims alleging platforms harm minors’ mental health through addictive algorithms.
Experts like University of Pittsburgh professor Vanitha Swaminathan note the case highlights tensions between tech innovation and child protection, potentially forcing platforms to implement age‑gated features, parental controls or reduced engagement tactics for minors. A plaintiff win could open the door to billions in damages across consolidated suits, while a defence verdict would bolster arguments that personal responsibility, not design, drives addiction.
Jury Questions Reveal Focus on Causation, Family Factors and Usage
Since deliberations started, the jury has sent multiple notes to the judge, querying the plaintiff’s family dynamics, the extent of her Instagram/YouTube use as a child, and how to calculate damages. These questions suggest jurors are grappling with causation: whether platforms were the primary driver of harms or merely a coping mechanism amid neglect, criticism and bullying at home.
Cross‑examination revealed the plaintiff felt “neglected, berated and picked on” by family, which defendants leveraged to argue social media was a symptom, not the cause, of her issues. The deadlock note implies at least one holdout juror disagrees on liability for one platform, possibly split on whether features like infinite scroll constitute “negligent design” foreseeably harmful to kids.
Meta and Google Defences: No Causation, Pre‑Existing Issues
Meta has maintained throughout that the plaintiff’s struggles predated heavy platform use and would have occurred “without Instagram,” framing the case as a bid to blame tech for broader societal problems. Google similarly argued YouTube served as an escape rather than a trigger, with no evidence of platform‑specific negligence.
A Meta spokesperson reiterated post‑note that the jury’s task is solely to assess if the platforms substantially caused the harms alleged, underscoring the company’s confidence in the evidence separating user choices from product design.
What Happens Next: Mistrial Risk, Retrial and Broader Impact
If the jury cannot reach unanimity—required for civil verdicts in California—the case will be retried with a new panel, delaying precedent‑setting clarity for months. Legal observers expect continued deliberations through the week, with the judge potentially issuing an Allen charge urging compromise without coercion.
A hung jury would not end the litigation but signal deep divisions on core questions: Do addictive designs create foreseeable harms to minors? Should platforms bear liability akin to tobacco or gambling firms? Regardless, the trial has already compelled disclosure of thousands of internal documents on youth research, fuelling calls for federal regulation like the Kids Online Safety Act.
Plaintiffs seek compensatory and punitive damages, plus injunctive relief for safer designs, while defendants warn of a chilling effect on innovation if liability is imposed. As the social media addiction trial hangs in the balance, its outcome will reverberate through courts, boardrooms and app stores, defining the frontier of tech accountability for the next generation.
