Last year, I wrote about social media addiction and the resulting insurance implications. Meta had tendered the social media litigation claims against it to its insurers, seeking defense and coverage under its General Liability policies. The insurers resisted providing coverage for certain claims, arguing that they owe no duty to defend against the claims arising from Meta’s alleged intentional acts, specifically, the design of addictive platform features.

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.

Coverage Ruling and Appeal

On February 27, 2026, the Delaware Superior Court ruled that, based on the allegations as pleaded in the Social Media Litigation, the insurers do not have a duty to defend Meta. The court ruled that the Meta complaints fail to allege accidental conduct, as required under the applicable policies and California law. The ruling is limited to the duty to defend and does not address indemnification, which may turn on facts developed through discovery.¹

Following the Delaware Superior Court’s ruling, Meta filed a Motion for Reargument, which the court denied. On June 11, 2026, Meta appealed both the court’s decision and the Order denying reargument, contending that the court misapplied California law and improperly treated contested factual allegations as established. Meta maintains that it never conceded its design choices were intended to increase child engagement, asserting instead that its goal was simply to improve user experience.²

Bellwether Trials

The first bellwether trial took place earlier this year in California. A jury determined that Meta and Google were negligent in designing their platforms, were aware of the associated risks, failed to provide adequate warnings, and caused substantial harm to the plaintiff. The jury awarded $3 million in compensatory damages and an additional $3 million in punitive damages to the plaintiff. Prior to jury selection, co‑defendants Snapchat and TikTok reached confidential settlements with the plaintiff.³

Following the verdict, Meta and Google petitioned the court to set it aside, challenging the jury’s negligence findings. A California state court judge denied those motions, rejecting the companies’ arguments that they were shielded by Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, which generally immunizes internet platforms from liability arising from third-party content. In her ruling, the judge emphasized that the case was not about what content users viewed on the platforms, but about the way the products themselves were designed to draw them in and keep them hooked. The judge further noted that jurors were repeatedly instructed not to base their decision on platform content. Although Meta and Google have indicated their intent to continue with their appeals, as of June 2026, no appeals have yet been filed.⁴

There are eight more bellwether trials being prepared. The next trial is scheduled to begin in California on July 27, 2026, against Meta, Snapchat, and TikTok. YouTube (Google) recently reached a confidential settlement.⁵

We will continue to monitor the Delaware coverage appeal along with the social media addiction litigation and will provide updates as developments unfold. In the meantime, feel free to reach out to me or your Gen Re claims executive with questions.