Meta Platforms, the parent company of social media sites Facebook and Instagram, is defending itself against thousands of lawsuits that allege its social media platforms cause serious harm to children. The majority of the cases were consolidated into two cases in California. In Delaware, where Meta is incorporated, Meta's insurers are seeking a declaration that they have no duty to defend Meta in those cases.
The California cases have been brought by three types of plaintiffs: individual families suing on behalf of their kids, school districts and local governments, and 43 states.
The suits allege that Meta deliberately designed its platforms to exploit psychological vulnerabilities and maximize user engagement, intentionally targeting minors in the process. The alleged consequences for young users include addiction, depression, and self-harm.
Following the lawsuits, Meta turned to its insurers, including Hartford Casualty Insurance Company, Sentinel Insurance Company, and several companies under the Chubb umbrella, and asked them to cover its defense costs. Most of the insurers denied coverage.
Meta's insurers filed suit in Delaware seeking a declaration that they owed no duty to defend Meta, while the California litigation was still ongoing. Meta sought to stay the Delaware suit until the California suits were resolved or transfer the case to California, but the court denied both motions.
Duty to defend
The most consequential part of the case is whether Meta's insurers owe a duty to defend Meta in the underlying suits. The court stated that when there is a declaratory relief action concerning a duty to defend, "the insured must prove the existence of a potential for coverage, while the insurer must establish the absence of any such potential. In other words, the insured need only show that the underlying claim may fall within policy coverage; the insurer must prove it cannot."
The insurers questioned whether the underlying lawsuits allege harm caused by an "accident". The insurers argued their policies require them to defend Meta only against suits seeking damages caused by an "occurrence", which the parties agreed is synonymous with "accident" under California law.
California law defines an accident as "an unexpected, unforeseen, or undesigned happening or consequence from either a known or unknown cause." California law also states, "an accident does not occur when the insured performs a deliberate act unless some additional, unexpected, and independent unforeseen happening occurs that produces the damage."
When there is conflict on whether the underlying allegations allege an accident or deliberate conduct, the court applies a two-step analysis: whether the underlying suit alleges anything other than deliberate conduct, and if not, whether the suit alleges an additional, unexpected, independent, and unforeseen happening caused the damage. If neither apply, then the insurers have no duty to defend.
Was Meta's conduct deliberate?
The court determined that the underlying actions did indeed exclusively allege harm caused by deliberate conduct. The underlying actions alleged that Meta intentionally designed its platforms to maximize engagement, knowingly targeted minors, and made deliberate architectural choices that foreseeably led to harmful outcomes.
Meta argued that the conduct was not strictly deliberate, but had aspects that were the result of negligence, but the court disagreed.
The court drew support from California case law. In Traveler's Property Casualty Co. of America v. Actavis, the California Court of Appeals found that allegations of sophisticated and deceptive marketing were deliberate and intentional acts. In James River Insurance Co. v. SureFire, a federal court ruled that an insurer had no duty to defend against claims stemming from a mass shooting. The court found that the claims addressed the company's intentional marketing choices, and not accidental mistakes.
The court, following the case law, found that Meta's business design choices were deliberately aimed at increasing engagement and fell within the scope of deliberate conduct. Meta did not present a compelling argument that the underlying suit was a result of negligence, and not deliberate conduct.
Was there an unforeseen intervening event?
The court then looked at whether any additional, unexpected, independent, and unforeseen happening produced the alleged damage. To do so, they must assess whether the damage were "indirect unintended results caused by fortuities outside [Meta]'s control.
Meta argued that even if its design choices were deliberate, the harm done to children was unforeseeable. The court had to determine whether there was causal proximity in whether the damage alleged in the underlying suit was a foreseeable outcome from Meta's business decisions. The court found that the underlying suits alleged that it was not random chance that Meta's platforms would result in children being addicted to them, but a deliberate design using algorithms to enhance engagement.
Meta also argued that harmful content created by third-party users and hosted on its platforms are unforeseen harms. Under California law, independent tortious conduct by a third party can sometimes qualify as an unforeseen happening that breaks the chain of deliberate causation.
However, the court rejected this argument as well. The court found that the creation and consumption of potentially harmful user-generated content was precisely the intended purpose of Meta's platform design. Algorithmic delivery of engaging third-party content was not a fortuitous event, but a design choice by Meta.
The court ruled that Meta's insurers do not have a duty to defend Meta in the underlying California lawsuits.
The case is Hartford Cas. Ins. Co. v. Instagram, LLC, 2026 Del. Super. LEXIS 95 (Super. Ct. 2026).
Editor's note
This ruling is a significant win for Meta's insurers, who are not required to provide a defense in what will likely be a long and expensive litigation, involving thousands of cases and plaintiffs.
In determining whether the insurers had a duty to defend, the court looked at whether the underlying suits alleged harm caused by an accident, which under California law is synonymous with occurrence. Since Meta's conduct was found to be strictly deliberate and not accidental, the insurers are not compelled to provide a defense.
This article was first published by FC&S Expert Coverage Interpretation, a sister site of PropertyCasualty360.com.
(Featured image credit: AzureAD/Adobe Stock)
© Arc, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to TMSalesOperations@arc-network.com. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.