The opinions expressed here are those of the author, a columnist for Reuters.

By Jenna Greene

June 23 (Reuters) - As Meta and other tech companies face thousands of lawsuits over allegations that they designed social media platforms to addict young users, a parallel big-money battle is unfolding in Delaware: whether insurers will be required to bankroll the industry’s legal defense.

Led by The Hartford and Chubb, more than 20 insurers argue they have no duty to pay defense costs that could reach hundreds of millions of dollars or more. While companies typically buy liability insurance to cover the cost of defending lawsuits, the insurers say those policies don’t apply here because Meta's alleged misconduct was deliberate.

In a preemptive strike, the insurers sued Meta in late 2024 in Delaware Superior Court. Earlier this year, they won the first round, when the court ruled they had no duty to defend the Facebook and Instagram parent — teeing up a major battle now on appeal before the Delaware Supreme Court.

Meta, which did not respond to a request for comment, denies wrongdoing in the social media addiction cases and argues in court papers that its defense should be covered.

The Hartford also did not respond to a request for comment. A spokesperson for Chubb said, “As a matter of policy, we do not comment on individual claims.”

At the center of the dispute is a familiar but high-stakes insurance question: when are allegations of negligence enough to trigger a defense?

The underlying social media complaints accuse Meta of intentionally designing features to exploit teenagers’ developing brains and foster compulsive social media use — conduct insurers say was not accidental and therefore falls outside coverage.

Meta counters that the social media addiction suits also allege negligence, or the failure to use reasonable care, and that it never intended to harm its users. Under governing California law, Meta argues, these factors should require its insurers to fund its defense.

The insurance dispute echoes opioid‑era coverage fights involving drugmakers and pharmacies, where courts often held that insurers were not required to defend lawsuits that alleged deliberate conduct or sought public-harm damages. Those rulings left companies paying their own legal bills — in some cases, hundreds of millions of dollars — shaping how aggressively they litigated and when they chose to settle.

Here, the initial Delaware decision, if it stands, bodes ill for social media defendants. “It is a major threat to companies facing high-tech addiction claims if affirmed or adopted elsewhere,” Benjamin Fliegel, a partner at Reed Smith who specializes in insurance recovery litigation and is not involved in the case, told me.

Underscoring the stakes, a Los Angeles jury in late March held Meta and YouTube liable for $6 million in damages in an early test of the plaintiffs’ theories. A 20-year-old woman alleged she became addicted to the companies’ social media products at a young age because of their manipulative design, leading to depression, anxiety and other mental health issues.

A judge on June 9 denied the defendants’ motion for a new trial, and the companies said they plan to appeal the case.

The “bellwether” verdict offers what some lawyers describe as a potential roadmap for future injury claims by youth and their families, as well as school districts, local governments and state attorneys general alleging widespread harm from social media addiction.

Meta and other tech companies face about 3,300 lawsuits consolidated in California state court, as well as about 2,400 lawsuits in federal multi-district litigation in Oakland, California.

In a 58-page opinion issued in February, Delaware Superior Court Judge Sheldon Rennie held that the insurers have no duty to defend the cases.

He focused his decision on what he termed the “threshold issue: whether the underlying lawsuits allege harm caused by an ‘accident.’” Under the terms of Meta’s insurance policies, its insurers are obliged to defend suits seeking damages for injuries stemming from unintended actions. A classic example, Rennie noted, is a chainsaw slipping out of someone’s hand.

The underlying social media complaints allege forms of negligence — which liability policies typically cover when tied to accidental conduct. But here, Rennie ruled it was not enough to trigger the duty to defend.

“The plaintiffs allege — and Meta concedes that they allege— that the platforms were specifically engineered to maximize engagement,” he wrote. “It was not ‘mere fortuity’ that these design choices led to the alleged harms.”

Meta on June 12 filed a notice of appeal to the Delaware Supreme Court. It has not yet submitted its opening brief, but in an earlier motion requestingre-argument of Rennie's ruling, the company foreshadowed its likely arguments on appeal.

Rennie fundamentally mischaracterized Meta’s position and misapplied controlling California law, Meta lawyers from Covington & Burling and Berger McDermott argue.

They cast the judge’s ruling as improperly resolving factual disputes that should be left for juries. Meta “did not concede, and indeed vigorously contests” that its design choices were intended to increase child engagement, the lawyers wrote.

Instead, they say Meta’s primary goal was to “improve user experience and deliver value.”

Meta also points to jury instructions in the bellwether trial, which specified the company could be held liable for negligent design regardless of intent. Meta argues this undercuts Rennie’s conclusion that the negligence claims are merely labels attached to deliberate conduct.

To be clear, the appeal won’t decide whether Meta is in fact liable for social media addiction — only who must pay to fight the claims. But as insurers and tech companies watch closely, the answer could shape how long this litigation lasts, and how much pressure defendants feel to settle.