Jurors resumed deliberations on Tuesday in a landmark social media trial after signalling difficulty reaching agreement on one of the two defendants, Meta or YouTube.
“The jury has difficulty coming to a consensus regarding one defendant. Do you have any advice on how to move forward?” The jurors wrote to Judge Carolyn Kuhl, according to a note she read aloud.
Kuhl instructed the panel to continue deliberating.
“If you are unable to reach a verdict, the case will have to be retried before another jury selected in the same manner and from the same community, adding additional costs for everyone,” she told the jurors.
The afternoon concluded without a verdict, meaning the jury will return on Tuesday to continue its deliberations.
The panel’s first full week of deliberations ended on Friday with a query to the judge about calculating damages. The case is expected to set a precedent for thousands of similar lawsuits across the United States.
The query suggested that enough jurors agreed that one or both tech platforms were negligently or harmfully designed and that users should have been warned, according to verdict forms.
The lawsuit is one of hundreds claiming social media companies encourage young users to become addicted to their content, potentially contributing to depression, eating disorders, psychiatric hospitalisation, and even suicide.
Jurors resumed deliberations on Tuesday in a landmark social media trial after signalling difficulty reaching agreement on one of the two defendants, Meta or YouTube.
“The jury has difficulty coming to a consensus regarding one defendant. Do you have any advice on how to move forward?” The jurors wrote to Judge Carolyn Kuhl, according to a note she read aloud.
Kuhl instructed the panel to continue deliberating.
“If you are unable to reach a verdict, the case will have to be retried before another jury selected in the same manner and from the same community, adding additional costs for everyone,” she told the jurors.
The afternoon concluded without a verdict, meaning the jury will return on Tuesday to continue its deliberations.
The panel’s first full week of deliberations ended on Friday with a query to the judge about calculating damages. The case is expected to set a precedent for thousands of similar lawsuits across the United States.
The query suggested that enough jurors agreed that one or both tech platforms were negligently or harmfully designed and that users should have been warned, according to verdict forms.
The lawsuit is one of hundreds claiming social media companies encourage young users to become addicted to their content, potentially contributing to depression, eating disorders, psychiatric hospitalisation, and even suicide.
‘Negligent’ designs
Tech giants have long relied on Section 230 of the US Communications Decency Act, which shields them from responsibility for user-generated content.
However, this case argues that the platforms are responsible for defective products, with business models designed to capture users’ attention and promote content that may harm mental health.
The verdict could hinge on whether familial issues and other real-world trauma, or rather apps like YouTube and Instagram, are to blame for the mental health struggles of the plaintiff.
Kaley G.M., a 20-year-old woman from California, testified that YouTube and Instagram contributed to her depression and suicidal thoughts as a child, telling jurors that she became obsessed with social media, beginning with YouTube videos, at age six.
During cross-examination, she also described feeling neglected, criticised, and picked on by family members.
Jury instructions ask the panel to decide whether Meta or YouTube should have known their services posed a danger to children or were negligent in design.
If so, jurors must determine whether the companies were “substantial factors” in causing Kaley’s struggles and calculate any damages owed.
The trial was chosen as a “bellwether” case, with its outcome potentially setting a precedent for other lawsuits holding social media responsible for mental and emotional harm.
However, if the jury cannot reach a verdict regarding Meta or YouTube, a different case could establish that standard.
“We’re reading tea leaves, and we don’t know what they mean,” said the plaintiff's attorney, Mark Lanier.
“I don’t think that we’re even remotely close to the issue of a mistrial.”
Tech giants have long relied on Section 230 of the US Communications Decency Act, which shields them from responsibility for user-generated content.
However, this case argues that the platforms are responsible for defective products, with business models designed to capture users’ attention and promote content that may harm mental health.
The verdict could hinge on whether familial issues and other real-world trauma, or rather apps like YouTube and Instagram, are to blame for the mental health struggles of the plaintiff.
Kaley G.M., a 20-year-old woman from California, testified that YouTube and Instagram contributed to her depression and suicidal thoughts as a child, telling jurors that she became obsessed with social media, beginning with YouTube videos, at age six.
During cross-examination, she also described feeling neglected, criticised, and picked on by family members.
Jury instructions ask the panel to decide whether Meta or YouTube should have known their services posed a danger to children or were negligent in design.
If so, jurors must determine whether the companies were “substantial factors” in causing Kaley’s struggles and calculate any damages owed.
The trial was chosen as a “bellwether” case, with its outcome potentially setting a precedent for other lawsuits holding social media responsible for mental and emotional harm.
However, if the jury cannot reach a verdict regarding Meta or YouTube, a different case could establish that standard.
“We’re reading tea leaves, and we don’t know what they mean,” said the plaintiff's attorney, Mark Lanier.
“I don’t think that we’re even remotely close to the issue of a mistrial.”
.jpg "Obama 'Star Wars' center reflects former president’s vision, legacy")
