On March 25, 2026, after eight days of deliberation, the jury reached a verdict in the first bellwether trial against Meta and YouTube.

The verdict: The jury ruled in favor of Kaley on all counts. Scroll down to the bottom of this description for the full verdict.

This week, we take you inside the final, nerve-wracking days in the hallway and courtroom — the jury questions about expert testimony, deleted accounts, Instagram usage, punitive damages, and the moment they told the judge they were deadlocked with one defendant.

We walk through what each question meant, what it revealed about the jury’s thinking, and how both sides responded. You’ll hear what happened in real time as families waited, attorneys speculated, and the stakes became crystal clear.

We’re joined by Laura Marquez-Garrett of the Social Media Victims Law Center to break down:

• What the verdict actually means
• Whether an appeal is likely
• Why early bellwether cases often shape — but don’t decide — the larger war
• What happens next in the thousands of cases still moving forward

Because this was never just about one family.

It the most powerful tech companies in the world… versus families. And this verdict is the accelerator of justice.

The trials continue. Thousands of families. Dozens of states. School districts. The pressure is building. We’ll continue to be inside the courtroom translating it all for parents everywhere.

The Heat is On...Big Tech on Trial is an investigative mini-series by Scrolling 2 Death, in partnership with Heat Initiative.

Video Editing expertly provided by Jacob Meade.

Are you willing to take action against Big Tech? Join us in D.C.! Fill out this form.

THE VERDICT

META

1. Was Meta negligent in the design or operation of Instagram? YES
2. Was Meta’s negligence a substantial factor in causing harm to KGM? YES
3. Did Meta know or should it reasonably have known that the design or operation of Instagram was dangerous or was likely to be dangerous when used by a minor in a reasonably foreseeable manner? YES‍
4. Did Meta know or should it reasonably have known that users would not realize the danger? YES
5. Did Meta fail to adequately warn of the danger? YES
6. Would a reasonable platform designer or operator under the same or similar circumstances have warned of the danger or instructed on the safe use of the platform? YES
7. Was Meta's failure to adequately warn or instruct a substantial factor in causing harm to KGM? YES

YOUTUBE

1. Was YouTube negligent in the design or operation of YouTube? YES
2. Was YouTube's negligence a substantial factor in causing harm to KGM? YES
3. Did YouTube know or should it reasonably have known that the design or operation of YouTube was dangerous or was likely to be dangerous when used by a minor in a reasonably foreseeable manner? YES‍
4. Did YouTube know or should it reasonably have known that users would not realize the danger? YES
5. Did YouTube fail to adequately warn of the danger? YES
6. Would a reasonable platform designer or operator under the same or similar circumstances have warned of the danger or instructed on the safe use of the platform? YES
7. Was YouTube's failure to adequately warn or instruct a substantial factor in causing harm to KGM? YES

‍

THE DAMAGES

A. What are KGM's damages? 

$3,000,000

B. What percentage of responsibility for K.G.M.’s harm do you assign to each of the following? 

70% Meta

30% YouTube

C. Do you find that K.G.M. proved by clear and convincing evidence that Meta acted with malice, oppression, or fraud in conduct upon which you base your finding of liability? YES

D. Do you find that K.G.M. proved by clear and convincing evidence that YouTube acted with malice, oppression, or fraud in conduct upon which you base your finding of liability? YES

PUNITIVE DAMAGES: $3,000,000 ($2.1M to Meta, $900K to YouTube)