Quick answer
In March 2026 a Los Angeles jury found Meta and YouTube negligent in the first social media addiction trial, and a Santa Fe jury found Meta misled New Mexico teens about safety. The companies are appealing. A second Los Angeles trial began October 28, 2026; after Meta, YouTube and TikTok settled, Snap is the only defendant.
The first verdict: Los Angeles, March 2026
The first social media addiction case to reach a jury was brought by a 20-year-old woman identified in court as K.G.M. She testified that she started using YouTube at 6 and Instagram at 9. The case was part of the coordinated California state-court cases (JCCP 5255) before Judge Carolyn B. Kuhl in Los Angeles Superior Court. Snap and TikTok settled with her before trial.
On March 25, 2026, the jury found that Meta and YouTube were negligent in the design or operation of their platforms, that they failed to adequately warn of the dangers to minors, and that this was a substantial factor in causing her harm. The jury awarded damages. In June 2026 the judge denied the companies’ requests to overturn the verdict or order a new trial. Meta and Google are appealing.
New Mexico v. Meta: Santa Fe, March 2026
A day earlier, on March 24, 2026, a jury in Santa Fe found that Meta violated New Mexico consumer protection laws by misleading teenagers about the safety of its platforms. That case was brought by the state, not by a family, so it does not pay individual injury claims.
The trial under way now
- Jury selection began October 28, 2026 in Los Angeles, in a trial brought by two young women identified as S.J. and K.D.B., tried together before one jury.
- TikTok and YouTube settled with both before trial. Meta settled with S.J. before trial and with K.D.B. on October 30, 2026. Terms were not disclosed.
- Snap is now the only defendant. The claims focus on design features such as streaks, push notifications and view counts. Snap denies the claims, and its CEO, Evan Spiegel, is expected to testify.
What is a bellwether trial?
When thousands of similar cases are pending, courts pick a few to try first. These test cases, called bellwethers, show both sides how juries react to the evidence. They do not decide anyone else’s case, but they often shape what happens next across the litigation.
What comes next
- November 13, 2026: hearing on pre-trial motions in the federal cases (MDL No. 3047) in Oakland.
- February 3, 2027: jury selection in the first federal school-district test trial.
- March 16, 2027: the next group of California state-court bellwether trials is scheduled to begin.
What this means for your family
Each family’s claim still stands on its own facts, and every state sets its own filing deadline. This is not a class action. Every child’s case is filed in the child’s name, valued on the child’s own facts, and never settled without the family’s written agreement.
Common questions
Who won the social media addiction trial?
In the first trial, decided March 25, 2026 in Los Angeles, the jury found Meta and YouTube negligent and awarded damages to the plaintiff. Meta and Google are appealing.
Does the verdict mean my family gets paid?
No. A verdict in one case decides only that case. Your family’s claim depends on your child’s own facts and must be filed before your state’s deadline.
Is Meta still on trial?
Not in the trial that began October 28, 2026. Meta settled with both plaintiffs, leaving Snap as the only defendant. Meta remains a defendant in thousands of other cases.
Is this a class action?
No. Each child’s case is handled individually: filed in the child’s name, valued on the child’s own facts, and never settled without the family’s written agreement.
Sources: ABC7 Los Angeles, jury finds Meta and YouTube liable in social media addiction trial (Mar 25, 2026); Bloomberg Law, jury finds Meta deceived New Mexico teens about platform safety (Mar 24, 2026); MDL Update, JCCP 5255 (California state court) timeline (Oct 2026); Engadget, Meta settles another social media addiction case just before trial (Oct 30, 2026); MDL Update, MDL 3047 status (Oct 2026). Attorney advertising by Grove and Associates PLC; responsible attorney Justin Grove. Results in other cases don’t predict the outcome of yours. This page is general information, not legal or medical advice.