TOP
Nearly two years ago, I wrote about the wave of lawsuits targeting social media companies, particularly those brought by parents and school districts. Among the most significant is the Multi-District Litigation (MDL) No. 3047, filed in October 2023 in the Northern District of California by the attorneys general of 41 states against Meta. The suit alleged that Meta engaged in a “scheme to exploit young users for profit” by misleading them about safety features and the prevalence of harmful content, harvesting their data, and violating federal laws on children’s privacy resulting in emotional and physical harms.1
Today, those lawsuits have multiplied. Thousands of families across the country are pursuing social media addiction lawsuits in state and federal courts nationwide claiming that platforms such as Facebook, Instagram, YouTube, and Snapchat intentionally design algorithms to maximize user engagement, even though there is mounting evidence that this engagement results in mental health damage for young adults and adolescents. The first case is expected to reach a California jury in November 2025. This closely watched trial will serve as an indicator of how juries may respond to certain evidence and testimony that will likely be repeated in subsequent litigation.2
As of August 1, 2025, there were 1,922 active lawsuits pending in the social media addiction MDL.3 A federal judge recently finalized 11 bellwether cases (six school district suits and five personal injury suits) to serve as test cases. The first trials, involving school district plaintiffs, are scheduled to begin in late 2025 or early 2026. These test trials are expected to establish facts and predict outcomes for other cases in the group.4
Meta tendered the social media addiction claims to its insurers, seeking coverage and defense under its General Liability policies. The insurers have resisted providing coverage for certain claims, arguing that they owe no duty to defend against claims arising from Meta’s alleged intentional acts, specifically, the design of addictive platform features.5
In November 2024, one of Meta’s insurers, Hartford Casualty Insurance Company, initiated a declaratory judgment action in Delaware Superior Court seeking a ruling as to whether they (and other insurers) have a defense obligation. In December 2024, Meta filed a similar action against its insurers in California, alleging breach of contract and bad faith. Meta also sought to stay the coverage litigation until the MDL cases have concluded.6
In May 2025, a California federal judge granted the Insurers’ motion to dismiss Meta’s case under the first-to-file rule and also granted the Insurers motion to remand the suit back to Delaware state court.7
As of August 2025, the Meta case remains pending in Delaware. The key issue insurers are waiting to see is whether they must defend Meta in lawsuits that allege intentional but unadjudicated acts, or whether such claims fall squarely outside the scope of General Liability coverage. We will keep you up to date on new developments.
In the meantime, feel free to reach out to me or your Gen Re claims executive with questions.
