Jury verdicts in California and New Mexico have found Meta liable for inflicting harm on young people’s mental health, significantly increasing the exposure faced by large social media companies defending thousands of similar lawsuits nationwide. However, a February ruling by the Delaware Superior Court granting partial summary judgment in favor of Meta’s insurers has cast doubt on whether insurers will be required to provide defense or indemnity coverage for such claims.

Goldberg Segalla partner and leader of the firm’s Global Insurance Services team in Pennsylvania, Michael A. Hamilton, spoke with Law360 about the Delaware decision, noting that the court focused on whether Meta’s conduct was accidental or intentional for coverage purposes. He explained that the company’s platform design choices were voluntary business decisions aimed at maximizing engagement among young users.

“Meta argued to the Delaware Superior Court, in support of coverage, that the plaintiffs were alleging that Meta created an app which, through Meta’s alleged negligence, caused addiction and harm,” he says. “The Court rejected this argument by noting that while the outcome was framed as negligence, the underlying act of creating and deploying the platforms were intentional and thus was not accidental in nature.”

Beyond Meta, Michael says the ruling may have broader implications for insurance disputes involving emerging risk areas. He notes that ultraprocessed food companies face similar allegations that their products are designed to hook children and contribute to health issues, though he has yet to see insurance coverage litigation arise from those claims.

READ THE FULL ARTICLE HERE: “Meta Faces Steep Coverage Test for Verdicts After Del. Ruling,” Law360, March 26, 2026 (Subscription required)

MORE ABOUT GOLDBERG SEGALLA’S Michael A. Hamilton:

Michael handles sophisticated and high-exposure insurance coverage claims and commercial litigation. As a leader of the firm’s Global Insurance Services Pennsylvania and Ohio teams, Mike focuses his practice on environmental, professional liability, construction defect, transportation, and business torts/advertising injury claims. He has been lead defense counsel in class action litigation, representing insurance companies, self-insurers, and transportation entities. He also has extensive appellate experience, arguing numerous appeals in state and federal courts across the country.