A Delaware judge has ruled insurers do not have a duty to defend Meta Platforms in the thousands of lawsuits that allege its Facebook and Instagram platforms harm children.
Superior Court Judge Sheldon K. Rennie ruled Meta’s insurance companies are not obligated to provide its defense because the allegations against the company describe deliberate and intentional acts rather than accidents or occurrences that would trigger coverage under the commercial general liability policies.
The judge also found that Meta would not be prejudiced by a Delaware coverage ruling at this time.
Thousands of suits have been filed on behalf of children who used Meta’s platforms, as well as by more than a thousand school districts and 43 states. The lawsuits have been consolidated into two actions in California. Known as the Social Media Litigation, the complaints allege Meta intentionally designed addictive algorithms and features on Instagram and Facebook that allegedly cause young users to suffer mental health issues, including anxiety, depression, and eating disorders.
Hartford, Chubb, and more than 20 other insurers sought a declaration in Delaware, Meta’s state of incorporation, that they owe no duty to defend Meta in the Social Media Litigation.
In Meta’s view, the design choices it made constituted accidents and are thus covered by its insurance because it did not intend to cause the alleged resulting harm, such as addiction or depression.
However, insurers successfully argued that the complaints do not need to allege Meta intended to cause harm, just that Meta intended to engage in certain conduct, and the conduct resulted in harm. Because the harm allegedly flowed directly from deliberate design choices, the insurers argue the “accident” requirement of the insurance policies is not met.
Meta asked that any ruling about insurance coverage be dismissed or delayed until after the litigation is completed. It maintained that California law dictates coverage litigation must be stayed pending resolution of the underlying action when the coverage litigation turns on facts to be litigated in the underlying action.
The insurers said California law does not mandate a stay in this case because the court is not making factual determinations regarding Meta’s intent, causality, or knowledge.
Judge Rennie agreed with the insurers.
“The conduct alleged in the Social Media Litigation–even when viewed through the lens of negligence–describes deliberate acts rather than accidents under the policies. Because the court’s determination regarding Meta’s intent is based strictly on the face of the underlying complaints, it does not “overlap” with the factual truth of the allegations to be litigated in California,” the judge ruled.