Update (March 25): A New Mexico jury has delivered one of the first major rulings in the growing wave of social media addiction lawsuits, finding Meta liable for misleading the public about platform safety and exposing children to harm. After a nearly seven-week trial, jurors concluded the company violated state consumer protection laws through deceptive and "unconscionable" practices, with thousands of violations adding up to $375 million in penalties.
State officials argued Meta ignored internal warnings about risks to young users while prioritizing engagement and profit. The company says it will appeal, maintaining that it discloses risks and actively works to limit harmful content.
The jury in the closely watched Los Angeles social media addiction trial told Judge Carolyn B. Kuhl on Monday that it was having trouble reaching a consensus on one of the two remaining defendants. The case is an important one for the industry as it centers on whether the design of major social platforms harms young users.
Jurors did not say whether the holdout relates to Meta or YouTube, but Kuhl told them to keep deliberating and warned that if they cannot reach a verdict, that part of the case will have to be retried before a new jury.
One note read aloud in court asked: "The jury has difficulty coming to a consensus regarding one defendant, do you have any advice on how to move forward?"
Last Friday, the jury sent the court a question about how to calculate damages, a sign that at least some jurors had already moved beyond the question of liability.
According to reports on Monday's hearing, that earlier note suggested enough of the panel believed one or both platforms may have been negligently or harmfully designed and should have warned users about the risks. The jury went home without a verdict and is due to resume deliberations on Tuesday.
Related: Judge warns smart glasses wearers of contempt charges as Zuckerberg testifies in Meta trial
K.G.M. v. Meta et al. is not just another argument over harmful content showing up in feeds. The case is trying to establish that features such as infinite scroll, autoplay, and recommendation algorithms can function like a defective product when they are tuned to maximize engagement in children.
That distinction matters because Judge Kuhl previously ruled that Section 230 does not automatically shield the companies from claims tied to product design, leaving jurors to decide whether the apps' mechanics, rather than just the material posted on them, caused harm.
Snap had also been part of the trial before it settled in January, and TikTok exited before opening arguments, leaving Meta and YouTube to face the full impact of a case that could influence thousands of related lawsuits from parents, school districts, and attorneys general.
The plaintiff, now 20-year-old California woman Kaley G.M., testified that Instagram and YouTube fueled depression, body-image issues, and suicidal thoughts that began when she was young.
The defense argued that social media is not legally comparable to tobacco or narcotics, and that family turmoil and other offline factors were the main reasons behind her struggles.