Hartford Casualty Insurance Co. v. Instagram, LLC - Insurance Coverage Dispute

IN THE SUPERIOR COU RT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE HARTF ORD C AS UALT Y) INSUR ANC E CO. and) SENTI NE L INSUR ANC E CO. LTD.,)) Plain tiff s,)) v.) C.A. No. N2 4C- 11 - 010 - SK R C CLD) INSTA GRAM, LLC as succes sor in) i ntere st t o Inst agram a/k /a Bur bn,) Inc.; META PLATF ORMS, INC.) f/k/ a TheFac ebook Inc. d /b/a Th e) Face Book, Inc.; FEDER AL) INSUR ANC E COM PANY; OL D) RE PUBL IC IN SURA NC E) COMP ANY; S TAR R INDEMNITY) AND LI ABI LITY C OMP ANY; and) ZURICH AMERIC AN) INSUR ANC E COM PANY,)) Defe nda nt s.)) FEDER AL I NSUR ANC E) COMPANY)) Defe nda nt and) Coun terc laim /Cr oss -) Claim /Third - Part y) Plain tiff,)) and,)) WESTCHE STER SURPLU S LINES) INSUR ANC E COM PANY;) WESTCHE STER FIRE) INSUR ANC E COM PANY; and) ACE PR OPERT Y AND) CASUALTY INSU RANCE)

COMPANY,)) Thi rd - Party Pl aintif fs,)) v.)) HARTF ORD C AS UALT Y) INSUR ANC E COM PANY;) SENT INEL INSU RANCE) COMP ANY, LTD.; INS TAGR AM,) LLC as succ ess or in i nteres t to) Insta gram a/k/ a Bur bn, I nc.; M ETA) PLATF ORM S, INC. f /k/a) TheFaceb ook Inc. d/b/a The Fa ce) Book, Inc.; OLD R EP UBLIC) INSUR ANC E COM PANY; STA RR) INDE MNIT Y AND LI ABILI TY) COMPANY; ZURICH AMERICAN) INSUR ANC E COM PANY;) ALLIANZ GLOBAL CO RPORATE) & SPE CIALTY SE; ARCH) INSUR ANC E COM PANY; ARG O) GROU P US; AS PE N AM ERIC AN) INSUR ANC E COMP AN Y;) CANO PIUS US INS UR ANCE,) INC.; E NDUR ANC E AMERI CA N) SPEC IALTY; FI REMANS FUND) INDEMN ITY CORPO RATION;) GEMINI INSURANCE) COMP ANY; GR EAT AM ERIC AN) INSURA NCE COMPAN Y; GREAT) AMERICAN SPIRIT INSURANCE) COMP ANY; IN TERS TATE F IR E &) CASUALTY COMPANY;) IRONSH ORE UK; LIBE RTY) MUTUAL INSURAN CE EUROPE) LTD.; THE LONDON MARKET) IN SURE RS; NA TI ON AL FIRE &) MARINE INSURANCE) COMPANY; NAT IONAL UN ION)

FIRE I NSUR ANC E COMP AN Y OF) PITTS BUR GH, P A; RS UI) INDE MNIT Y COM PAN Y; ST ARR) SURP LUS LI NES I NS URANC E) COMPANY; STARSTONE) SPECI ALT Y INS URAN CE) COMPANY; STEADFA ST) INSUR ANC E COM PANY; and XL) INSURANCE AMERICA, INC.,)) Thi rd - Par ty De fenda nts.) Submit ted: Novem ber 10, 202 5 Decid ed: Februa ry 27, 202 6 Corrected: Ma rch 5, 202 6 * CORRECTED MEMORANDUM OPIN ION AND ORDER Defenda nts ’ Mot ion to Dismiss or Stay: DENIED. Plaint iffs ’ Motion for P artial Summar y Judgment: GRA NTED. Davi d J. B aldwi n, Esquir e, Pe ter C. Mc Giv ney, E squ ire, B ERGER M C D ERMOTT LLP, Wilm ingto n, Dela ware, Mar tin H. M yers, Esq uire, C OVINGTON & B URLING LLP, San Fra nc isco, C al iforn ia, Heath er Ha bes, Esqu ire, C OVINGTON & B URLING LLP, Los Ange le s, Calif orni a, Att orne ys for Defendants Ins tagram LLC a nd M eta Platfo rms, In c. Thad J. Brac egir dle, Esquir e, S ara T. A nd rade, E squ ire, Emil y L. Ska ug, Es quir e, B AYARD, P.A., Wilmin gton, Delaware, James P. Ruggeri, Esquire, Sara K. Hunkle r, Esqui re, R UGGERI P ARKS W EINBERG LLP, Washingt on, D.C., Attorneys f or Pl aintiff s Hartf ord C asu alty I nsu ranc e Com pany and Se ntine l In suran ce C ompa ny, L td. Stama tio s Stam oul is, Es quir e, S TAMOULIS & W EINBLATT L LC, Wilmington, Delaw are, Blair E. Kam insky, Esqu ire, Da nie l M. Hor owitz, Esq uire, Bria n T. Goldm an, Esquire, H OLWELL S HUSTER & G OLDBERG LLP, New York, New Y ork, Attor ney s for Defendants and C ross - Complaint Plain tiffs F ederal Insur ance * This decision has bee n reissued to correct the inadvertent omission of National Fire & Marine Insurance Company’s joinder from Footnote 11. No other amendment s ha ve been m ade.

Comp any, W estc hest er Sur plus L ines I nsura nce C omp any, W estch este r Fir e Insur ance Com pany, and ACE Prop erty and Casual ty Insura nce Compa ny. John Balagu er, E squire, B ALAGUER M ILEWSKI & I MBROGNO LLP, Wilmin gton, Delaw are, Tim othy H. Wrig ht, Es quire, S KARZYNSKI M ARICK & B LACK LLP, Chica go, I lli nois, Attor neys for De fendant Zurich Ame rican Insu rance Company and Third - Part y Defe nda nt Steadfas t Insur ance Com pany. John Balagu er, E squire, B ALAGUER M ILEWSKI & I MBROGNO LLP, Wilmin gton, Delaw are, Mich ael M. Mar ick, E squ ire, Elle n D. Jen kin s, Esq uire, Andr ew J. Candel a, Esqui re, S KARZYNSKI M AR ICK & B L ACK LL P, Chic ago, Illin ois, Attorneys for Def endant Starr Indemni ty & Liabi lity Ins uranc e Company an d Third - Part y Defen dan t Starr Sur plus Lines I nsuranc e Company. Carme lla P. Ke ener, Es quir e, C OOCH & T AYLOR PA, Wilm ingt on, Dela ware, Ada m H. Fle ischer, Es quire, Jos hua A. B oggi oni, Esqu ire, W illia m D. Edwar ds, Esq uire, B ATES C AREY LL P, Chic ago, I llin ois, Att orneys for Thir d - Par ty Defe ndants Asp en Amer ican I nsu ranc e Comp any and Gre at Amer ican S piri t Insur ance Compan y. Matthe w C. Ne lson, Esq uire, K ENNEDYS CMK LLP, W ilm ingto n, De laware, Attorn ey f or De fendan t O ld Re public Insura nce C ompany. Kris ta M. Re ale, E squir e, M ARGOLIS E DELSTEIN, Wilmi ngto n, De laware, Mi chael J. DiSan tis, Esquire, Na talie C. Me trop ulos, Esq uire, T RESSLER LLP, Pi ttsbur gh, Penns ylva nia, Attorneys for Thi rd - Part y Defen dant s Fire man’ s Fund I nde mnit y Corpo ration an d Inter state Fire & Cas ualty Com pany. Karin e Sar kisian, Esq uire, K ENNEDYS C MK LLP, Wilmin gto n, Dela ware, Krist en D. Perk ins, Es quire, K ENNEDYS CMK LLP, F ort La uder dale, Flor ida, Car a Ve cchi one, K ENNEDYS CMK LLP, Berkele y Heig hts, New Jer sey, A ttor neys f or Thi rd - Party Defen dan t Endu ranc e Risk So lut ions As sur ance C o. (ca ptio ned as E ndu rance Amer ican S pecia lty). John C. Phi llips, Esq uire, Dav id A. Bils on, Esquire, P HILLIPS M C L AUGHLIN & H ALL, P.A., Wil mington, Delawa re, Andre w L. Mar guli s, Esq uire, Jung H. Par k, Esqu ire, R OPERS M AJESKI PC, New Yor k, Ne w York, Attor neys fo r Third - Party D efendant Natio nal Fire & Marin e Insuran ce Compan y.

Loren R. Barr on, Esquir e, K AUFMAN D OLOWICH LL P, Wilmin gto n, Dela ware, Davi d A. Tar tagl io, Es quire, Ste phen M. Gree n, Es quire, M USICK, P EELER & G ARRETT LLP, Lo s Ange les, Calif ornia, Att orne ys for Thir d - Par ty Defe ndant G emini Insur ance Com pany. Rober t J. C ahal l, Esq uire, M C C ORMICK & P RIORE, P.C., New ark, Delaware, Attorney for T hird - Party D efendant Nationa l Union Fir e Insuran ce Com pany of Pit tsburgh, PA. Julie M. O’ Del l, Esq uire, Laur en A. Fer gus on, E squir e, S MITH, K ATZENSTEIN & J ENKINS LLP, Wilm ingt on, De lawar e, Attor neys fo r Thir d - P arty Defe nda nt XL Insu rance A meric a, Inc. Renn ie, J.

I. INTR ODUCTION Meta— the c om pany be hin d socia l med ia pla tf orms F acebo ok an d Insta gram — is e mbroi led i n se vera l tho usand la wsui ts regar ding the h arm its platf orm s alle gedl y cause chil dren. M ost of the suits have bee n co nsoli date d int o two acti ons in Ca lifo rnia (the “Soc ia l Med ia L itiga tion”). Here in Delaware, Meta’ s state of inc orpo rati on, M eta’s ins ure rs see k a decl ara tion t hat t hey owe no dut y to defend Meta in the Soc ial Medi a Litig ation. Two mot ions are before th e Court: Meta’ s Moti on to Dism iss or Stay (“ Meta ’s Motio n ”) and Ins urers’ Mot ion for P art ial S umma ry Jud gme nt (the “ In surers ’ Motio n”). Meta seeks t o stay this ac tio n pen din g resol ution of the Socia l Med ia Litig ation or, in th e alte rna tive, as a matter of forum non co nvenie ns. Conver sely, Insurers seek a sum mary r uli ng th at, un der Ca lif orn ia law, the al lega tio ns in th e Socia l Media Litiga tion do n ot trig ger a duty to defe nd. The Cou rt concl udes tha t: (i) a stay i s ne ither required under Cal ifornia law nor w arra nted und er De lawa re la w, a nd (i i) I nsurer s ha ve estab lish ed that the alleg ations in the Socia l Media Litig ation do no t trigge r a duty to def en d unde r th e appli cable Meta insurance polic ies. Accor din gly, M eta’ s Mo tion is DE NIED a nd In surer s’ Mo tio n is GR ANTE D.

2 II. BA CKGRO UND A. The Parties Plain tiff Hartf ord C asua lty I nsur anc e Compa ny (“Har tfor d Casua lty ”) i s an India na co mpan y with it s princ ipa l plac e of bu sines s in Con nec ticu t. 1 Ha rtfo rd Casua lty is sued pr im ary ins uranc e cove ra ge to “Th e Fac e Boo k, Inc. ” from 2 004 to 2007. 2 Plain tiff Sent inel Insu rance Com pany (“Se ntin el, ” toge the r wit h Hartfor d Casua lty, “Har tf ord”) is a Conn ec ticu t com pany with its princi pal pla ce of b usine ss in Con nectic ut. 3 Sen tine l is sued prima ry insur ance c ove rage to “I nsta gra m a /k/a Burbn, Inc.” from 2011 to 2 012. 4 Defe nda nts a nd Cro ss - Co mplaina nt Plain tiffs include sever al e ntitie s un der the Ch ubb Limi ted u mbre lla (c ollec tive ly, “Chub b”): • Federal I nsurance C ompany (“ Federal”): an I ndia na c orpo rati on ba sed in New Jer se y th at prov ided pr imar y and umbr el la gene ral l iabi lity insur ance to Facebook, Inc., from 20 07 t o 2016; 5 • Westc he ster Su rplu s Lin es Ins ura nce Com pan y (“We stche ste r Surpl us”): a Georg ia corpor at ion ba sed in Pe nnsyl van ia that p rovided 1 H artford’s Amended Complaint (the “Amended Com plaint ”) (D.I. No. 14) ¶ 3 (hereina fter “Am. Compl.”). 2 Id. 3 Id. at ¶ 4. 4 Id. 5 See Chubb ’s Counterclaims, Cross Claims, and Th ird - Party Compla int (the “ Chubb Complaint”) (D.I. No. 15) ¶ 5 (hereinafter “Chubb Compl.”).

3 exces s genera l liability insura nce polic ies to Fa cebook, Inc. from 20 09 to 2011; 6 • Westc he ster F ire I nsura nce Com pany (“W estc hester Fir e”): a Penns ylva nia c orpo rati on bas ed in Pe nnsy lvan ia that i ssue d excess gener al l iabi lity i nsur ance to Fac ebo ok, In c. fr om 20 11 to 2 016; 7 and • ACE P roper ty a nd Casua lty I nsura nc e Comp any (“ ACE ”): a Penns ylva nia c orp orati on ba sed i n Pen nsy lvan ia that is sued um bre lla liab ility in sura nce p olic ies to Def en dant Meta Platf orm s, In c. from 2020 to 2023. 8 Hartf ord a nd Ch ubb (toge ther, the “I nsu rers”) joi ntly f ile d the I nsurer s’ Moti on. 9 At least 17 other insur ers ar e als o defe ndan ts in the Dela ware A ctio n (th e “Other Insurers”). 10 A sub set have joined the Insur ers’ Mo tion. 11 6 Id. at ¶ 6. 7 Id. at ¶ 7. 8 Id. at ¶ 8. 9 See Insur ers’ Motion (D.I. 110) (hereinafter “Ins. Mot.”) 10 The Other I nsurers are Old Republic Insurance Company; Starr Indemnity and Liabilit y Company; Zurich American Insurance Company; Aspen American Insurance Company; Endurance American Specialty; Fireman’s Fund Indemnity Corporation; Gemini Insurance Company; Gr eat Am erican S pirit Insuran ce Co mpany; Inters tate Fi re & Casual ty Co mpany; National Fire & Marine Insurance Company; National Union Fire Insurance Company of Pittsburgh, PA; RSUI Indemnity Company; Starr Surplus Lines Insurance Company; Steadfast Insurance Company; and XL Insurance America, Inc. Notably, this is not th e same list of insuran ce compani es ident ified i n the case cap tion — s everal insurers in the caption we re subsequently voluntarily dismissed. 11 Zurich American Insurance Company (D.I. 127), Steadf ast Insurance Company (D.I. 128), Aspen American I nsurance Company (D.I. 129), Great American Spirit Insurance Company (D.I. 130), Old Republic Insurance Company (D.I. 132), Fireman’s Fund Indemnity Corporation and

4 Defe nda nt In stagra m, L LC (“I nsta gra m LL C”) is a De lawar e l imite d li abili ty compa ny. 12 Defe nda nt Meta P la tform s, Inc. (“M eta P latf or ms,” t oge ther w it h Insta gram LLC, “M eta” or “Def enda nts ”) is a Dela ware corp orat ion w ith its princ ipal plac e of b usine ss in C alif orni a. 13 B. The Und erly ing L iti gati on The Soc ial Medi a Litig ation com prises thous ands o f lawsu its conso lidated into two pr imar y pro ceedi ngs in Ca lifor nia: a mul tidis trict liti gati on in t he United State s Di stric t C ourt for the Nort hern Di stric t of C al iforn ia, (the “ MDL”), a nd a J udicia l C ou ncil C o ordi nati on P rocee din g in the Super ior Cour t of Ca lif orni a for the Coun ty of Los An gel es (t he “JCC P”). 14 While the specific ca use s of acti on var y, the y gene rall y alleg e tha t Meta: (i) desi gned its pl atf orms t o max imiz e en gage ment by exploitin g psychol ogical vulne rabi lit ies an d embe ddin g addic tive featur es i nto the pla tform s; and (ii) inte ntiona lly ta rget ed minor s with the se de sign ch oices. 15 Interstate Fire & Casualty Company (D.I. 133), Endurance Risk Solutions Assurance Company (D.I. 135), National Fire & Marine Insurance Company (D.I. 136), and Gemini Insurance Company (D.I. 137). Starr Indemnity & Liability Company and Starr Surplus Lines Insurance Company (together, “Starr”) moved for summary judgment against Chubb instead of joining the Insurers’ Motion. (D.I. 131). The Court uses its inhe rent authority to m anage the d ocket to t reat Starr’s motion as another joinder to the Insurers’ Motion. 12 Am. Compl. ¶ 12. 13 Id. at ¶ 11. 14 Id. at ¶ 17. 15 Id. at ¶ 18.

5 The Soc ia l Media L it igat ion ha s three cla sses of plai ntif fs: individuals su ing on be half of chil dren w ho use d Meta ’s plat form s (the “I ndiv idua l Plai ntiff s”) (appr oxim ate ly 3,40 0 compla int s); 16 s chool d istr icts a nd lo ca l gover nmen ts (t he “Schoo l Distric t Plaint iffs”) (appr oxi mate ly 1, 700 c ompla int s); 17 and 43 sta tes (t he “Sta te Pla inti ffs”). 18 The In divid ual P lai ntif fs see k re cover y for the harm s c hildr e n expo sed t o the platf orms a lle ged ly ex perien ced, i ncl udin g ad dict ion, de pre ssion, and self - ha rm. 19 The Sc hool Di stri ct P lain tiffs a nd th e Sta te Pla intif fs se ek re cove ry f or the re sour ces t hey ex pend ed to respond to the you th m enta l hea lth cr isi s that allege dly a rose out of chi ldre n’s e xpos ure t o Meta’ s pla tfor ms. 20 After the commence ment of the S oci al Me dia L itiga tion, Met a tendere d the claim s to t he I nsurer s for defe nse c osts. The Insurers la rgely denie d cove rage, though the y a gree d to defen d certain In divid ual Pla intif f claim s subje ct t o a reser vati on of r igh ts. 21 16 See Request for Judicial Notice (D.I. 11 5) (he reinafter “R JN”) Ex. 1 (“ Individuals’ MDL Complaint”); see als o RJN Ex. 10 (“Individuals’ JCCP Complaint”). 17 See RJN Ex. 2 (“ School Dis tricts’ MDL Complaint ”); see also Insurers ’ Mot. Ex. B (“School Districts’ JCCP Complaint”). 18 See R JN Ex. 3 (“State AGs’ MD L Complaint”); see als o RJN Ex. 11 (“State A Gs’ JCC P Complaint”). 19 Am. Compl. ¶ 18. 20 Id. 21 See, e.g., id. at ¶ 41.

6 C. The Cover age L itig ation On Nove mber 1, 2024, Hartfo rd com menc ed the instan t liti gati on (th e “Dela ware Ac tio n”) agains t Me ta, C hubb, and cer tain of th e Other Insure rs. 22 Hartf ord fi led the A men ded Com pla int on Dec ember 18, 202 4, see king dec larat ory judgm ent that it o wes no d uty to de fend Meta agains t cla ims bro ught b y (i) the Schoo l Dis trict P lai ntiff s or Sta te Pla intif fs (C ount I), a nd (ii) t he Ind ivi dua l Plain tiff s (Co unt II). 23 On Dece mber 20, 2 024, C hubb fi led it s Ans wer (t he “Chu bb A nswer ”) 24 and the Chu bb Com pla int, a cross - comp lai nt tha t large ly mi rror s the Am ende d Compl aint. Addit ionally, Count I V of the Chub b Com pla int see ks a d eclar ati on that, shoul d Ch ubb be fo und to ha ve a duty to defe nd Me ta, then the Othe r Insurer s are simi larly lia ble. 25 To that en d, Chubb joi ned th e Other Insure rs to th is litig ation as thir d - party d efen dants. Meta re mo ved t he De lawar e Ac tion t o fe dera l cour t on Dece mber 27, 202 4, seeki ng it s tran sfer t o the MDL. 26 Three da ys late r, on Dece mber 30, 202 4, M eta 22 Specifically, Old Republic Insurance Company, Starr Indemnity and Lia bility Company, and Zurich American Insurance Company. 23 Am. Compl. ¶¶ 47 –68. 24 See Chubb Answer (D.I. No. 15) (hereinafter “Chubb Ans.”). 25 Chubb Ans. ¶ 48. 26 See In re Soc. Media Adolescent Addiction/Pers. Inj. Prods. Liab. Li tig., 2025 W L 1518041, at *2 (N.D. Cal. May 27, 2025) (hereinafter the “MDL Decision”).

7 file d a self - descr ibe d “para lle l act ion” in the Uni ted Sta te s Distr ict C our t for t he Nort hern D istr ict of Cal iforn ia (the “Fe de ral Ac tion”). 27 The Ins urer s subse que ntly m ove d to dis miss the Federal Acti on and r emand the Dela ware Ac tion, arguin g that the Del aware Acti on wa s first f iled and ther eb y enti tled t o defe rence. 28 On May 27, 2025, the C alif ornia f eder al court g rante d the Insure rs’ m oti on, remanding the ca se to D ela ware state c our t. 29 On Jul y 23, 2025, Meta file d ano ther pa ra llel ac tio n, thi s time in Calif or nia state c our t (the “ Cali for nia St ate Ac tio n”). 30 Me ta explic itl y stat ed tha t this f ilin g “was f iled pr otect ivel y” to en sure tha t Met a could co nti nue to lit igate the se issue s i n Calif orn ia sho uld this C ourt de term ine tha t Delaw are la w, ra ther tha n Calif orni a law, gove rns the dis pute. 31 D. The Pre sen t Mot ions On July 24, 20 25, Meta 32 and Insu rers 33 filed their re spec tive m oti ons. The partie s c omple ted b rief ing o n Se ptem ber 19, 20 25, fo llo wing the subm iss ion of 27 Id. 28 Id. 29 Id. 30 See Meta’s Motion (as amended, D.I. 175) (original, D.I. 116) at p. 14 (hereinafter “ Meta’s Mot.”). 31 See Meta’s Reply Br. p. 2 (The C aliforn ia Stat e Action “was filed protect ively b ecause cov erage under the Policies is governe d by California — not D elaware — law. Assum ing the Court applies California law, Meta has no objection to proceeding here.”). 32 See Meta’s Mot. (D.I. 175). 33 See Insurers’ Mot. (D.I. 110). Insurers’ Motion is a motion for partial summary judgment because it seeks resolution of the duty to defend but not the duty to indemnify.

8 cross - ans wer ing and r eply br ief s. 34 The Cou rt hear d ora l argum en t on both m otio n s on Novem ber 10, 20 25, and took the matte r s under advi seme nt (the “Trans cript ”). 35 This op inion fo llow s. III. META’S MOTION TO D ISMISS OR STAY A. Party Posit ion s 1. Meta’ s Posi tio n Meta move s to s tay the Dela ware Acti on pen ding re sol uti on of t he Soc ia l Media Litiga tion, 36 or in the alte rnat ive di smis s or stay the De law are Ac tion ba se d on forum non convenie ns or dism iss th e Dela ware Ac tio n for f ail ure to sta te a cla im purs uant to S uperior Court Ru le of C ivil P roce dure (“R ule”) 12(b) (6). Meta ra ise s four prim ary ar gum ent s: First, Meta argues that a set tled pr inc iple of Califor nia law ma nda tes t hat the Cour t stay t he De lawa re Ac tion un til t he Soc ial Media Liti gati on is re sol ved. 37 This pr inci ple — which Meta refers to as a “ Montrose Stay” — dic tate s that c overa ge liti gati on must be staye d pen din g reso lut ion of t he under lyi ng act ion w hen the cove rag e lit igation “ tur ns on f acts to be l iti gate d in the under lyi ng acti on.” 38 Meta a rgue s tha t the stay is ma nda tor y rega rdle ss of a spec ifi c 34 Insurers’ A nswering Brief (D.I. 160) (hereinaft er “Insure rs’ Ans. B r.”), Meta’s Answeri ng Brief (D.I. 161) (h erein after “M eta’s Ans. B r.”), Meta ’s Reply Brief (D. I. 184) (her einafter “M eta’s Reply Br.”), and Insurers ’ Reply B rief (D.I. 1 86) (herein after “ Insurers’ R eply Br.”). 35 See Trans cript (D. I. 201) (hereinaft er “Tr. ”). 36 Meta’s Reply B r. p. 14 (“Meta principally seeks to stay Insurers’ action[.]”). 37 Meta’s Mot. p. 17. 38 Id. at p. 28 (quoti ng Montrose Chem. Corp. v. Supe r. Ct., 861 P.2d 1154, 1162 (Cal. 1993) (herein after “ Montrose ”)).

9 showi ng of pre judic e, be caus e the Dela war e Acti on i nvolve s fa ctua l det erm inat ion s centr al to th e Socia l Media Litiga tio n, inc ludi ng Meta’s intent in cre ating the at - issu e platf orm fe atur es, the cau sali ty of t he al lege d ha rm s, and Meta ’s k nowle dge of t hose ha rms. 39 Second, M eta ar gues that eve n if De lawa re law appl ies, the Cou rt should exercise its inheren t author ity to stay the pr ocee din g to pre ven t preju dice. 40 Meta asser ts tha t it is f aci ng a “two - fron t w ar” where Insur ers h ave e ffect ivel y “joi ned force s” with the So cia l Media Liti gati on pla intif fs. 41 Fact ual fin dings in the Delaw are Ac tio n, Meta wa r n s, coul d impro per ly lim it its de fens es in th e Soc ial Media Litigat ion. 42 Thir d, Meta argu es th at the De la ware Ac tion sh oul d be dis miss ed und er forum non co nven iens i n favor of the C alif ornia S ta te Act ion. 43 It con tend s tha t Del awa re’s only c onne ctio n to th e liti gati on is Met a’s incor pora tion i n the Fir st Sta te, an d the Calif orn ia Sta te Ac tion c an pr ovid e mor e com pre hens ive re lief. 44 39 Id. 40 Id. at p. 31. 41 Id. at p. 32; see also Me ta’s R eply B r. p. 1 (“Met a is prepa red to liti gate i n Delaw are after th e Social Media Cases are resolved and the risk of prejudice from simultaneous litigation i s relieved. ”). 42 Id. 43 Id. at p. 25. Meta also a rgues that the Delaware Action should be stayed pending resolution of the Social M edia Litigation, but the Court ad dress es the substance of this argument in conjunction with the Montrose Stay analysi s. 44 Id.

10 Finall y, M eta move s to dis miss under R ule 12(b) (6), argui ng tha t Ins urer s concede d a “potential for coverage” b y agree ing to de fen d agai nst ce rta in claims by Indi vidua l Pla int iff s s ubjec t to a re ser vati on of r ig h ts. 45 2. Insu rers’ Position To Meta ’s fir st po int, the Insurers con tend tha t Cal iforn ia la w does n ot mandate a Montr ose Stay because th e Court is not makin g factual det erminat ions rega rding Me ta’s inte nt, causali ty, or knowledg e. 46 Instead, th e Cour t’s du ty t o defe nd is a “fo ur c orner s” revie w of the allegati ons in the S ocia l Media Liti gati on. 47 Accor din g to I nsur ers, deter mi nati ons ba se d on a lle gati ons, r athe r tha n fac ts, will not pr even t Me ta from ful ly liti gati ng i nten t, cau sali ty, an d kn owle dge i n the under lyi ng litiga tio n; hence a Montr ose Stay is ina pt. The Ins urers note t hat th eir own pr ocedu ral pos tu re reinf orc es thi s point — they only s eek summary judgme nt on the dut y to defe nd, wh ich t hey ar gue c an be res olved on t he all ega tions, an d not indem nifi cat ion, whic h the y conc ede c ould r equ ire di scov ery into th e facts. 48 To Me ta’ s sec ond po int, the Insure rs res pond tha t De law are law — not Calif ornia l aw — should gov ern whe ther to gr ant a stay. 49 Under D el awa re l aw, overla ppi ng fac tua l deter min atio ns do not au toma tic ally trig ger a sta y; rat her, 45 Id. at p. 33. 46 Id. at p. 26. 47 Id. 48 Id. at p. 29. 49 Insurers’ Ans. Br. p. 25.

11 Insure rs ar gue, Meta mus t demo nstra te ac tual pr ej udic e. 50 Insure rs asser t tha t n o “two - fro nt war” exi sts beca use they se ek su mmar y jud gmen t onl y on the du ty t o defe nd, wh ich mu st be r esolve d ear ly in the litig atio n to pre vent i nsure rs fro m pa ying indef ini te def ense c os ts the y may neve r owe. 51 To Meta ’s thir d poin t, the Insurer s argue t hat Met a’s fo rum no n conve nie ns argum ent fai ls beca use Meta has n ot dem onstr ate d that it fac es ove rwhe lmin g hards hip fr om lit iga ting in Del awa re. 52 Furthe r, I nsure rs m ain tain t hat a s the firs t - filed a cti on, the De la ware Ac tion i s enti tled t o def erenc e ove r Meta’ s late r - filed “mirr or ima ge” suit s in Calif ornia. 53 To Meta ’s fo urt h point, th e I nsure rs ma intain that the ir a greem ent t o pa y certa in lit iga tion exp ense s subje ct to a re serva tio n of right s is a standa rd in dustr y prac tice an d no t a lega l co ncess ion of cover a ge. 54 Conse quen tly, t hey ha ve not fa ile d to sta te a c laim u pon which r elie f ca n be gr ante d. B. Analys is The Cou rt ad dres ses in turn (i) th e Mon trose Stay, (ii) the forum non conve nie ns ar gumen t in fa vor of a s tay, (iii) the forum non con veniens argumen t in favor of dismi ssal, and (iv) Met a’s Rule 12 (b)(6) argu men t. 50 Id. 51 Id. at p. 31. 52 Id. at p. 13. 53 Id. 54 Id. at p. 31.

12 1. The Montro se Stay A Montro se S tay is a Califor nia doctri ne prov idi ng that a co ve rage actio n mus t be sta yed if it “m ay resu lt in fa ct ual determ inat ion s tha t woul d pre judic e the i nsure d” in the un derly ing l itiga tion. 55 Th e doctrin e preve nts an ins urer f rom using a decla rato ry relief actio n to liti gate f act ual is sues tha t are centr al to the ins ured’ s liab ility in the unde rlyi ng acti on. 56 Unde r Califor nia law, a sta y is mand atory if there is fa ctua l “ overlap ” betw een th e cov erag e an d underly ing ac tions. 57 In such c ases, th e Court does not weigh specif ic pre judi ce. Delaware law ha s no d irec t equ ivale nt; howe ver, t he Co urt mainta ins inherent author ity t o stay pr oce edi ngs to pr om ote ju dici al econ omy a nd preve nt har dsh ip. 58 Con sequ entl y, if Cal ifor nia law app lies, a stay i s man dator y upon a fin ding of fa ctual over lap; but if Dela ware la w applie s, t he sta y rem ain s withi n the c our t’s s ound discr etio n. The parties di spu te whet her t he sta y is a su bsta ntive issue (go verne d b y Calif orn ia law) or a proce dura l one (go vern ed by Dela ware law). 59 While the par tie s 55 GGIS Ins. Servs., Inc. v. Super. Ct., 86 Cal. Rptr. 3d 515, 525 (Cal. Ct. App. 2008). 56 Riddell, Inc. v. Super. Ct., 222 Cal. Rptr. 3d. 384, 393 (Cal. Ct. App. 2017). 57 See, e.g., id. at 392 (citing standard). 58 See Brenner v. Alb recht, 2012 WL 252286, at *4 (Del. Ch. Jan. 27, 2012) (c iting Joseph v. She ll Oil Co., 498 A.2d 1117, 1123 (Del. Ch. 1985)); see also OneSource Virtual, Inc. v. Foster Poultry Farms, LLC, 2024 WL 4544334, at *6 (Del. Super. Oct. 21, 2024) (applying forum non conveniens analysis to deny a stay in favor of a California action). 59 S ee Ins ure rs’ Ans. Br. p. 25; Meta ’s R eply Br. p. 10. See also, e.g., Travelers Cas. & Sur. Co. of Am. v. Blackbaud, -- A.3d ----, 2026 WL 410048, at * 1 (D el. Feb. 13, 2026) (applying New

13 have br iefed this qu esti on at leng th, the Court d oes not reach it. Meta ha s not sati sfied the stan dard for a stay u nder e ithe r jur isdic tion ’s fr ame work. i. Overl appin g Fact ua l Determ inat ions The thresho ld in quir y for a Mont rose Stay is whe the r resolu tion o f the coverage ac tion requir e s factual de term inati ons t hat ov erlap w ith the unde rlying litiga tio n. The Co urt mu st fir st de ter min e if r esolving the duty to def end action requires making any fact ual determi nations at al l. The Cou rt ther efor e loo ks to how a cove rage a cti on is r eso lve d (unde r Ca lifo rnia la w). To res olve a duty - to - de fen d coverage action unde r Cali fornia law, the C ourt must deter mine “[i] f any f act s sta ted or f air ly i nfera ble i n the c ompla int, or o ther wise known or dis cove red by the insur er, s ugges t a clai m pote ntia lly c over ed by the polic y.” 60 If so, the ins urer h as a du ty to de fen d. “On t he othe r han d, if, as a mat te r of law, neit her the com plai nt nor t he kno wn extr ins ic fac ts indic ate a ny ba sis for pote ntia l cover ag e, the duty t o defe nd doe s no t ar ise in the fir st i nsta nce.” 61 The Cou rt’s inquiry into the alle gati ons begi ns by c ompar ing t he underlying compl aint s wit h the ter ms of the pol icy. 62 R at her tha n c onsi der only t he “p lea ded York substantive law and Delaware procedura l law). See Tr. 35:15 – 18. (MET A’S COUNSEL: “Even if the stay is deemed procedural, the Court s hould enter one here. The Court c an and should do so pursuant to its inher ent authority because in light of all the fac ts, a stay would be in the interest o f justice.”). 60 GGIS, 86 Cal. Rptr. 3d at 526 (quoting Scottsdal e Ins. Co. v. MV Transp., 115 P.3d 460, 468 (Cal. 2005)). 61 Id. 62 Horace Mann Ins. Co. v. Barbara B., 846 P.2d 792, 795 (Cal. 1993).

14 word” in the unde rlying com plaints, the Cour t asse sse s whe ther the “f act ual i ssu es to be re sol ved i n the decla rato ry r elief a cti on ove rlap with i ssue s to be r es olve d in the un derly ing l itigat ion. ” 63 In ot her wo rds, Ca liforni a cou rts l ook bey ond the exa ct phras ing of t he com plai nts to de term ine whe ther they ca n infe r a poten tial basi s for cover age, even if it i s not direct ly al lege d. Therefore, f or p urpose s of a Montros e Stay, the Cour t lo oks to the alle gati ons — i ncludi ng in ferences — to decid e wheth er it can res olve the c over age questi on o n the a lleg ati ons, or whe ther it wil l nee d to m ake fact ual de term ina tion s. The Cou rt co nclu des tha t the Delaw are Action can be reso lved wi tho ut making fact ual de ter mina tion s. As di scus sed m ore f ully in t he Co urt’ s ana lys is of the Ins urer s’ Mot ion, the con duc t allege d in the Soc ial M edia L itiga tion — even whe n viewe d thro ugh th e lens of ne glig enc e — de scrib es de liber a te acts rat her t han acci dent s under the p olic ies. Bec ause t he C ourt’ s deter mi nati on regar din g Me ta’s inte nt is base d str ict ly o n the face of t he u nde rlyi ng c ompla int s, it does not “ ove rlap” with t he fac tua l tr uth of t he a llega tio ns to b e liti gate d in C alif orn ia. While Cal ifor nia la w pro vide s that dispute s ove r intent ional a cts are ofte n staye d, 64 that pr inc ipl e typic ally applie s where a court m ust pr obe a su bjective 63 G reat Am. Ins. Co. v. Super. Ct., 100 Cal. R ptr. 3d 258, 270 (Cal. Ct. App. 2009); see also Gray v. Zurich Ins. Co., 419 P.2d 168, 176 (Cal. 1966). 64 David Kleis, Inc. v. Super. Ct., 44 Cal. Rptr. 2d 18 1, 189 (Cal. Ct. App. 199 5) (c iting Montrose, 861 P.2d at 1162)).

15 menta l sta te or a mis take n bel ief tha t the in sure d’s c ond uct was lawf ul. 65 Th ese quest ions can re quir e disc over y into the pu rpor te d wron gdoin g, and th e conc lusio n s c ould ultim ate ly constit ute fac tual det erminat ion s regarding the insure d’ s min dset — whic h the un derl ying plain tiff c ould lev er age aga ins t the insu re d in th e unde rlying litig ation in direc t co ntrave nti on of the g oals of a Montrose Stay. Here, h oweve r, Met a’ s only base s for argu ing that the c ompl aint s do n ot al lege sole ly deli ber ate co nduc t can be re solve d wi tho ut mak ing f actua l de term inat ions. Meta ar gues tha t its conduct was acci dental beca use so me of the un derl ying compla ints allege n eglige nce - based ca uses of acti on. To t hat end, M eta pr ese nts exem plar a llega tio ns tha t the y con ten d demo nstra te that the negl ige nce cau ses of actio n re sulted f rom c ond uct tha t was not inte ntio nal, 66 but — as the C ourt c oncl ud es below — tho se a llega ti ons a llege negl ige nce r esul ting only fr om intention al c onduc t. Accor din gly, t he C our t rea ches its determ ina tion r egar din g Meta ’s i nten t sole ly f rom what t he com pla ints a llege — Meta does n ot pro vide t he Co urt a suf fici ent ba sis t o reach any act ual findin gs. Indee d, as a m att er of fa ct ual de term ina tion, Meta ’s in tent remai ns fu lly unres olve d. The same c onc lusi on ap plie s to M eta’ s arg ument s regar din g know ledg e and c au salit y — the Cour t make s its deter min ati ons sole ly o n 65 Id. 66 See Tr. 25:8 – 17 (Argument by Meta’s counse l that a determin ation that th e intention al conduc t exclusion applies would preclude Meta from raising negligence - based ar gumen ts in t he Soci al Media Litiga tion).

16 the al lega tion s (as pr ese ntl y cons titut ed) wi tho ut an y form of fac tua l inqu iry in t o them or ex ternal infor mat ion I nsure rs m ight ha ve posse sse d. Meta a lso argue s that even if th e factua l al legat ion s refle cted by t he compla ints as t hey e xist t oday do not prov ide a bas is for c over age, Meta is e ntitle d to a Montro se Stay becau se t he com pla ints c oul d be a men ded t o alle ge issues that could requir e fact ual dete rminations. This a rgume nt is u nava ilin g. While the C ourt has la tit ude t o infer pote ntia l fac ts fr om t he com plai nts, it ca nno t find a dut y to defe nd in hypo the tical sce nar ios o r, as he re, ge neral a sse rti ons tha t the un der lyin g facts could cha nge. 67 Without a more specific a rticula tion of how the allegatio ns could change, th e Court constr ains it s ana lys is t o the fac tual a lle gat ions as expr essly or infe ren tial ly rai sed in the unde rlyi ng l itiga tion. Althoug h the a llega tion s the mse lve s do n ot pr ovide a ba sis f or a Montrose Stay, Meta can st ill secure a stay if it can sh ow tha t the Court may need t o make factu al determi nation s resultin g from info rmation outsid e the complaints (i.e., unkno wn to the un der lying pla int iffs) but kno wable to the insur ers. 68 The th reshold 67 See, e.g., All Green Elec., Inc. v. Sec. Nat’l Ins. C o., 231 Cal. Rptr. 3d 449, 457 (Cal. Ct. App. 2018) (“[Insured] points to no authority permitting an insured to manufacture hypothetical scenarios beyond those encompassed by the plead ings or the facts known to t he insurer in order to give rise to a duty to defend.”); Upper Deck Co. v. Fed. Ins. Co., 358 F.3d 608, 615 (9th Cir. 2004) (“Mere speculation that the plaintiffs could or w ill allege [coverage - triggering] facts does not give rise to a duty to defend.”). 68 See Gray v. Zurich Ins. Co., 419 P.2d at 177. S ee also GGI S, 86 Cal. Rptr. 3d at 525 (“A liabili ty insurer has a duty to defend its insured if fac ts alleged in the complaint, or other facts known to the insurer, potentially could give rise to coverage under the policy. ”) (emph asis add ed).

17 ques tion is whet her there i s any e xter nal inform ati on ava ila ble. Meta pr esen ts a highl y atte nua ted theory that In sure rs have th is infor mat ion. M eta ar gues t hat because the In surers have agreed to def end certain case s (al b eit subject to a reser vati on of ri ght s), the C our t shoul d infe r tha t the In sure rs posses s extr insic inform at ion tha t guid ed these cover age de cisi ons. 69 Othe rwi se, Meta argue s, t he Insure rs w ould ha ve iss ued a blank et denia l. 70 This a rgume nt is unper suas ive. While Ins urers a re defending certa in ca ses, t hey d id so subje ct to a re serva tio n of righ ts. 71 A defe nse un der a rese rvat ion of rig hts is n ot a conc ess ion tha t there is a basis for a dut y to defend. 72 Indee d, an ins urer may seek rei mburseme nt for co vering a claim that ul timat ely ha d no ba sis for cover age. 73 Meta ’s po sitio n is that an insu re r lawfu lly ac tin g in “a n abunda nce of caut ion ” with re gar d to the la w is als o conce din g a factu al ba sis fo r cover age, or lea st ex posin g itse lf to an infere nce t hat it r elie d on other, und iscl osed infor mat ion in tenta tiv ely a greei ng t o cov er a n acti on. 74 M eta does n ot pro vide su ppor t for thi s gener al the ory or an y indic ati on that it happe ne d here. Not only is the theo ry unsuppo rted and unp ersuasi ve, but its genera l nature would als o ma ke it appli ca ble t o any cove rage acti on w here t he in sure r agre ed to 69 Tr. 21:15 – 18 (META’S COUNSEL: “Taking into account the information they have already, they agreed there was a potential for coverage and they agreed to defend.”). 70 Id. 71 Tr. 55:14–19. 72 Great Am. Ins. Co. v. Chang, 2013 WL 3153279, at *9 (N.D. Cal. June 19, 2013). 73 Id. (citing Buss v. Super. Ct., 939 P.2d 766, 776 (Cal. 1997)). 74 Scottsdale Ins. Co. v. MV Transp., 115 P.3d at 4 70.

18 prov ide cove ra ge pendi ng reso lut ion of du ty to defe nd li tiga tion. Insure rs wo uld be incen tiv ized t o de ny co vera ge in margi nal c ase s rath er t han prov ide c overa ge pend ing liti gati on. In sum mar y, Meta has pr ovided no basis for the Cou rt to conclude that resol vin g this a ctio n requ ires f actua l dete rmin atio ns ari sin g from the cur rent allega tio ns, f orese eab le ame ndme nts, or e xtri nsic evid ence. Accordingly, the C ourt find s tha t a ma ndat ory sta y in t his ac tio n is not re quire d un der C alifor nia la w. ii. Prejudice Ab sent a Stay The Cour t next con siders w hethe r Meta i s ent itle d to a dis creti ona ry sta y ba sed on pote ntia l pre judice. Meta ’s argum en ts on this poi nt ar e unavaili ng. First, Meta co nten ds th at In surer s are prov idi ng “aid and c omfor t” to the under lyi ng plai ntiff s by (i) “par rot ing” the asser tio ns th at Meta acte d int enti ona lly, and (ii) seekin g to “admit, val idate, or es tabl ish” w heth er th e under lyi ng alle ged injur ies fa ll with in spe cific policy periods. 75 The p arroting argum ent is not convi ncing b ecause, as previ ously not ed, this Cour t’s a sses sment of whe the r the under lyi ng compla ints allege intent iona l condu ct is a leg al inq uiry t hat d oes n ot overla p with t he fact ual de term inat ion of Meta ’s ac tual in tent in t he Socia l Media Litig ation. 75 Meta ’s R eply Br. p. 8.

19 Regar din g the timi ng of inj uries, Meta a rgue s that di sco very in to whe ther plai ntiff s fa ll wit hin the Ins urers’ cover age windo ws will create a movin g targe t. 76 But M eta fa ils t o sh ow ho w thi s disc over y cause s it le gal pr eju dic e. In fa ct, the ris k of pre judic e he re fa lls o n the I nsu rers, w ho may be f orced to expen d signif ica nt resour ces defen ding the claim s that di sco ver y event uall y reve als are ou tsi de the cover age per iods. Second, Me ta cla ims tha t it fac es a “t wo fron t war, ” requ irin g it to defend t his cover age ac tion a nd the unde rl ying li tiga tio n sim ulta neousl y. Thi s argu ment i s large ly m oot. B ecau se the Co urt co nclu des her ei n tha t the I nsur ers o we n o duty to defend, this litigatio n i s effect ive ly re solve d. A ny rem aini ng co sts t o Meta wou ld arise from an a ppea l, rat her tha n ongo ing di scover y or tri al pre parati on in th is foru m. Furthe r, a sta y under these cir cu msta nce s would pre jud ice t he In sur ers. An insur er’ s duty t o defe nd mus t be ass esse d at the outse t of a c ase. 77 Just as t he ins ure d is ent itle d to a pr ompt defe nse if cove rag e is po ssible, a n insu rer is e nti tled t o a promp t exi t when t her e is no p oten tial fo r cove rage. 78 Delayin g thi s deter mi nati on thro ugh a stay would force I nsur ers to fu nd a def ens e the y do n ot lega lly o we. 76 Id. at p. 9. 77 CNA Cas. of Cal. v. Seaboard Sur. Co., 222 Cal. Rptr. at 278 (citing Gray v. Zurich Ins. Co., 419 P.2d at 177)). 78 See Scottsdale Ins. Co. v. MV Transp., 115 P.3 d at 470 (“ The insurer should be free, in an abundance of caution, to afford the insured a defense under a reservation of rights, with the understa nding that re imburseme nt is availa ble if it is later establ ished, as a matter of l aw, that n o duty to defend ever arose. ”).

20 Final ly, Me ta’s conce rn rega rd ing co llater al es toppe l resu lti ng from reliti gating any adv erse fa ctual fin dings a rising ou t of this litiga tion is a lso m oot. 79 Becau se the Court’ s ruli ng res ts sole ly on the allega tio ns in the Socia l Media Litig ation — witho ut the need f or i ndepe nde nt dete rmi nati ons or disc over y — the re are n o adver se fac tua l fi nding s in t his act ion that c ould bind M eta i n the C alif orni a proce edi ngs. Hence, a Mon trose Stay i s not me rite d in this ac tio n. 2. For um non conve ni ens — s tay pe nding reso lut ion of t he Soc ial Me dia Litig ation Meta ra ise s two forum no n conv eniens - related arg um ent s in favor of Calif ornia. M eta a rgues tha t the De law are Acti on shou ld be (i) sta yed pend ing resol uti on of t he Soc ial Me dia Li tiga tio n or (ii) dism isse d in f avor of the Ca lifo rni a State Acti on. 80 “ Where an actio n inv olvi ng the same o r simi lar pa rtie s and t he sa me or sim ilar issue s is f ile d in ano ther jur isdic tion cont empor ane ou sly wi th or a fter t he Delaw are ac tio n, t he fo rum non con ve nien s analy sis app lies.” 81 “ The doc trin e of f orum no n conve nie ns gra nts t he cour t discre tio nary autho rity t o declin e juri sdictio n whe re ‘ consid eration s of con venie nce, exp ense, and 79 Meta ’s Mot. p. 32; M eta ’s Repl y Br. p. 9. 80 See Meta ’s Mot. p. 24 (ar guing that the California State Action i s more comprehe nsive, and the Court should thereby defer to it). 81 Zilb erstei n v. Fran kenstein, 2021 WL 5289104, at *2 (Del. Super. Nov. 12, 2021).

21 the in tere sts of j ustic e ’ show tha t the pla intiff 's c hose n for um would be ‘ undu ly inco nven ient, e xpen sive, and other wise ina ppro priat e. ’” 82 Meta fir st arg ues that t he Dela ware Acti on shou ld be staye d pend ing resol uti on of t he Soc ia l Medi a Lit igat ion a s a ma tter of foru m non conven iens. Meta con ced es that i ts sta y - based for um non c onven ien s argum ent es sent ially mirr ors i ts Mo ntros e Sta y req u est. 83 The in tent i n resol ving a du ty to defe nd at th e earl iest p ossib le stag e — t o prov ide cla rit y for bot h the in sured’ s defe nse strate gy an d the ins urer’ s financ ia l ob ligatio ns — out weig hs Meta’ s gener aliz ed cla ims that litiga tin g ins urer s’ dut y to defe nd — in an y forum — is incon venient. 84 As Meta ’s argum ent i n favor of a stay r ema ins un persu asive, the C our t turn s to Meta ’s pro pose d forum n on con ve nien s dism issal of the De lawa re Act ion in fa vor of the Ca lifo rnia State Act ion. 85 82 Id. at *3 (quoting Monsanto Co. v. Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co., 559 A.2d 1301, 1304 (Del. Super. 1988)). 83 Meta ’s Reply Br. p. 13. (“Insurers are wrong that Meta must demonstra te “overwhelming hardship” to prevail on forum non conve niens grounds. Meta seeks a Montrose stay pending resolut ion of the Soci al Medi a Cases — not in favor of its prote ctive Calif ornia action. ”). 84 Id. at p. 3 (“Meta seeks a st ay of coverage litigation with Insurers in all fora, including C alifornia and Delaware, pending resolution of the Social M edia Cases, to avoid prejudice.”); id. at p. 14 (“Moreover, Meta’s Motion to Dismiss is not “in favor of” the California lawsui t, which was filed to protect application of California law and would proceed simultaneously if the Court does no t stay t his case u ntil t he Soci al Medi a Cases are con cluded.”). 85 While Meta atte mpts to frame its reque st for dismissal in fa vor of the California State Action a s a stay, M eta also attempt s t o charact erize the C ali fornia S tate Acti on as a “mor e compreh ensiv e” resolution to the dispute. (Meta ’s Mot. p. 24). Both cannot be true. “[A] st ay has the same effect as a dismissal where ‘[a] stay in favor of another action results in the action i n Delaware being put on hold until the resolution of the action in another jurisdiction, at which point principles of res judicata would likely apply [to bar the further prosecution of the Delaware action].’” BP Oil

22 3. For um non co nvenie ns — d ismis sal in favo r of t he Cal ifo rnia S tate Acti on i. Forum Non C onven ien s Stand ard Delaw are S uper ior Co urt Ci vil Ru le 12 (b)(3) gove rns a m otion t o dism iss or sta y on the basis of forum no n conve nie ns. Und er De lawa re law, the ap plica ble f oru m non c onve nien s te st varies ba sed on th e proce edi ngs in th is Cour t and th e part ies’ litig atio n histo ry. Gen eral ly, on a mo tio n to dis mis s, the Cour t acc epts the c ompla int' s we ll - plead ed fact s as tr ue an d dra ws al l reas onab le inf ere nce s in the pla intif f's favor. When, howe ver, t he m otion t o dis miss is one base d on forum non conve nie ns, “t his Co urt exe rci ses it s sou nd discr eti on whe n mak in g find ings of fact an d draw ing co nclu sion s ther efr om” by us ing “a n order ly a nd log ical de duc tive proce ss. ” 86 “‘ [D]e spite lingu ist ic appea ranc e to the co ntra ry, forum non conven iens is not a doctr ine o f conve ni ence. ’ The ph ras e lite rally tr an slate s to ‘ fo rum not a gree ing, ’ with the mea ning of the phra se bett er un derst ood a s ‘ inapp ropriat e ’ or ‘ unsui table ’ forum.” 87 This C ourt ap plie s the “ Cr yo - Maid fac tors ” i n making a for um no n conve nien s deter mination. 88 These factors are: (1) the r elati ve ea se of a cce ss to pr oof; (2) t he availa bil ity of c ompu lsory pr oces s for wit nesse s; (3) the possib ilit y of the view o f the p rem ises, if a ppr opria te; (4) a ll ot her practi cal pro blems tha t wou ld m ake the Supply Co. v. ConocoPhillips Co., 2010 WL 702382, at *2 – 3 (Del. Super. F eb. 25, 2010) (quoting In re Citigroup S’holder Litig., 964 A.2d 106, 117–18 Del. Ch. 2009)). 86 Arrowood Indem. Co. v. AmerisourceBergen Corp., 2023 WL 2726924, at *8 (Del. Super. Mar. 30, 2023) (internal citations omitted). 87 Cresa Glob. Inc. v. Chir isa Cap. Mgmt. (US) LLC, 2025 WL 53168, at *1 (Del. Super. Jan. 9, 2025) (quoting Aveta Inc. v. Colon, 942 A.2d 603, 608 (Del. Ch. 2008); Aranda v. Philip Morris USA Inc., 183 A.3d 1246, 1249 (Del. 2018)). 88 Arrowood, 2023 WL 2726924, at *8.

23 trial of the cas e ea sy, ex pedi tiou s an d ine xpe nsive; (5) whet her the co ntrove rs y is depen den t up on the a ppli ca tion of De lawar e la w whic h the cour ts o f thi s Sta te m ore proper ly sh oul d deci de than t hose o f ano ther j uris dict ion; a nd (6) t he pende nc y or non - pe ndenc y of a si milar a cti on in a nothe r jur isdic tion. 89 The Co urt uses one o f thre e tes ts w hen a nalyz ing thes e fac tors, wit h the six th fact or deter mi ning th e app licab le test. 90 First, whe n the Dela war e case is t he fir st - filed betwe en th e pa rties, the C ourt a ppl ies t he “ Cryo - Maid te st, ” in wh ich t he defe ndan t mus t ove rcome a pre sum ptio n in favor o f the pla intif f’s choice by s how ing that l itiga tion i n Dela ware will ca use an “over whe lmi ng har dshi p”. 91 Seco nd, when there is a prior p endi ng ca se in an other juris dict ion be twee n the sa me par tie s invol vin g the sa me i ssue s, the Cour t app lie s the “ McWane test, ” and presumes tha t it sho uld gr ant t he de fen dant’ s re ques ted rel ief. 92 Thir d, when prior litigat ion betwe en the partie s has be en di smis sed an d there is no othe r prior pendin g lit igat ion 89 GXP Cap., LLC v. Argonaut Mfg. Servs., Inc., 253 A.3d 93, 101 (Del. 2021) (he reinafter “ GX P II”). 90 Id. at 100; GXP Cap., LLC v. Argonaut Mfg. Servs., Inc., 234 A.3d 1186, 1195 (Del. Super. 2020) (“[T]he five original Cryo - Maid facto rs are examin ed for al l forum non conveniens claims. And the later - added sixth pendency -of- oth er - cases factor fixes the b ackground presumptions and thresholds against which those five factors are analyzed.”) (herei nafte r “ GXP I ”). 91 Arrowood, 2023 WL 2726924, at *8. 92 See McWane Cast Iron Pipe Corp. v. McDowell - Wellman Eng’g Co., 263 A.2d 281 (Del. 1970) (herein after “ McWa ne ”); Arrowood, 2023 WL 2726924, at *8.

24 betwe en th e par tie s, the C our t app lies the “ Grame rcy te st ” and d oes not mak e presu mpti ons in fav or of e ithe r par ty. 93 N o matt er whi ch te st is ap plica ble, to pre vai l, the de fend ant mu st al ways s how a suff icie nt bur den b y the pl aint iff’ s choi ce of De la ware a s the for um in which t o bring suit. 94 ii. Pen dency of a Simila r Actio n Cr yo -M aid ’s “overw helm ing har dsh ip” te st is a ppr opria te her e. M eta seeks dism issa l of t he Del awar e Act ion i n fav or of t he Ca lifor nia Stat e Act ion. The Delaw are Ac tio n was fil ed fir st, on No vem ber 1, 2 024. 95 Meta’ s fir st par al lel ac tio n, the Fe dera l Act ion, wa s not fi led u nti l Dece mb er 30, 202 4. 96 After the Federal Acti on’s dism issa l on M ay 27, 2 025, Meta did not file its se con d para lle l actio n — the C alif ornia S ta te Acti on — un til July 2 3, 2025. 97 Desp ite th e two - m onth g ap be twe en the Delaw are A ctio n an d the Fe deral Acti on (and t he ei ght - mo nth ga p betw een the Del aware Acti on an d the Ca lifor nia State Act ion), Met a neve rth eles s con tend s tha t the act ion s were file d conte mpor ane ously. 98 Unde r Dela ware l aw, “[w] he n two c ase s are file d a t 93 See Gramercy Emerging Mkts. Fund v. Allied Irish Banks, P.L.C., 173 A.3d 1033 (Del. 2017); Arrowood, 2023 WL 2726924, at *8. 94 In re CVS Opioid Ins. Litig., 2022 WL 3330427, at *3 (Del. Super. Aug. 12, 2022). 95 D.I. 2. 96 Meta ’s Mot. p. 12. 97 Id. at pp. 13–14. 98 Meta ’s R epl y Br. p. 16.

25 appro xima tel y the sa me tim e, the c ourt c ompar es the fora witho ut pre fere nce f or one actio n over the ot her to avo id rewa rdi ng th e victo r in a ‘ race to the courthou se. ’” 99 A two - to - eigh t mon th del ay is out side the bou nds of contempo raneity her e. 100 Any r ema ining dou bt on t he is sue o f con tem pora neit y is re sol ved b y Meta ’ s ackno wle dgem ent that t he Ca lifor nia S tat e Acti on “wa s file d pr otect ivel y” in ca se the Cour t de term ine d that Dela ware law app lie d in the Dela ware Actio n. 101 There is no r ace to the cour thouse be twee n an a ction file d in o ne jur is dict ion a nd a la ter - filed act ion i n ano the r ini tiate d for the expr ess p urpo se of ser ving a s a jurisd icti ona l counterba lance to t he fir st ac tio n in ca se it concl udes i n an unfav orable resu lt. iii. Ease of Acce ss to Proof Meta has failed t o ident ify any d isco ver y or witn esse s tha t will be “ stym ie d by litig atin g in Dela ware. ” 102 Nor has M eta expl aine d why the “work arou nds” o f moder n met hod s of travel a nd i nfor mat ion tr ansfe r w ould “ be una vai lable or 99 Id. (quoting GXP I, 234 A.3d at 1195). 100 Se e Azurix Corp. v. Synagro Techs., Inc., 2000 WL 193117, at *3 (Del. C h. Feb. 3, 2000) (next business day is contemporaneous); Rosen v. Win d Ri ver Sys., Inc., 2009 WL 1856460 (Del. Ch. June 26, 2009) (eight business days); In re Bay Hills, 2018 WL 3217650, at *7 (eight days); Zilberstein, 2021 WL 5289104, at *4 (thirteen days); Li ncoln Benefit Life Co. v. Wilm. Tr., N.A., 2019 WL 1307870, at *1, *4 (Del. Super. Mar. 21, 2019) (one month). It is also important to n ote that Meta is a highly sophisticated business entity. 101 Meta ’s Reply Br. p. 2 (The California State Action “wa s filed protectively because coverage under the Policies is governe d by California — not D elaware — law. Assum ing the Court applies California law, Meta has no objection to proceeding here.”). 102 Cresa Glob. Inc, 2025 WL 53168, at *3.

26 impra ctic able” in resol vin g any conce rns re gard ing the loc ati ons of wi tnes ses and data. 103 Meta has n ot de mons trate d over whe lmi ng ha rdshi p on t his f actor. iv. Availab ilit y of Comp ulsory Pro cess Under thi s fac tor, “ the C ourt m ust ev alu ate whet her ‘a nothe r for um w ould prov ide a sub stan tial improve me nt as to t he num ber of wi tnes ses wh o wou ld be subje ct t o comp uls ory pr oces s.’” 104 To prevail o n this fa ctor, Meta “ mus t ide ntif y the inc onve nienc ed w itnesse s an d the spec ific su bsta nce of the ir test imon y.” 105 M eta has not ide ntif ied suc h witne sses. 106 Meta’ s “p osi tion i s furt her weak ened by t he re alit y tha t the wit nesse s in an y insur ance dispu te will m ostl y be empl oyees of the par ties — i.e. witness es who ‘ gener all y do no t re quire comp uls ory pr ocess to o btai n the ir appe aranc e. ’” 107 Compu lsor y proc ess do es not we igh i n fa vor of Dela war e lit igat ion a s a n overw helm ing ha rdsh ip. 103 In re CVS, 2022 WL 3330427, at *7 (applying the Cryo -Maid overwhelming hardship test). 104 Id. at *8 (quoting Mt. Hawl ey Ins. Co. v. Jenny Craig, Inc., 668 A.2d 763, 769 (Del. Super. 1995)). 105 Monsanto Co. v. Aeta Cas. & Sur. Co., 559 A.2d 1301, 1308 (Del. Super. 1988). 106 See M eta ’s Mot. p. 23 (r ather than identify specific individuals, Meta avers g enerally that “M eta is not aware” of individuals “subject to process in Delaware.”). 107 In re C VS, 2022 WL 3 330427, at *8 (quoting Rosen v. Wind Ri ver Sys., 2009 WL 1856460, a t *6).

27 v. Possi bilit y of View of the P remises This f acto r is n ot a pplic able in t his ac tio n, an d Me ta con cede s tha t it c arrie s no weig ht. 108 vi. Pract ical Cons ider atio ns The Cou rt m ay weigh t he “ e ffici ent admin istratio n of j usti ce ” a nd an alogous cons idera tion s unde r the ru bric of the “ Other Pr actical Co nside rations ” Cr yo - Maid factor. 109 This includ es ev aluating wheth er the matters are dupli cativ e or if an oth er forum has a lrea dy inv este d sub stan tial ef fo rts in the ca se. 110 Meta ar gues t hat pr oc eedin g in De lawar e w hen th e Socia l Med ia Liti gat ion i s ongoing, ris ks “wa stef ul du plica tio n” and “ the po ssibi lit y of inco nsi sten t and confli cting r ulings [,] ” when t he Cal ifor nia Sta te Ac tio n coul d prov ide rel ief w itho ut pullin g anoth er juris dictio n into the dis putes. 111 This f actor is the mos t favor able to Me ta. Meta correct ly note s that t he S ocia l Media Litig ati on is curr en tly ove rsee n by ca pab le Cal iforn ia juri sts w ho ha ve mana ged t he un derl ying c omp lexi ties f or ye ars. Inde ed, both M eta a nd I nsure rs ha ve band ied ab out var iou s quote s from the M DL tha t they purp ort ar e disp ositi v e on many of the is sues a ddre ssed he re. Eff icie ncy oft en fa vors the same court pres iding 108 Meta ’s Mot. p. 33. 109 Martinez v. E.I. duPont de Nemours and Co., Inc., 86 A.3d 1102, 1113 (Del. 2014). 110 Z ilberstein, 2021 W L 5289104, at *5 (citing Hamilton P’rs v. Englard, 11 A.3d 1180, 1217 (Del. Ch. 2010)). 111 Meta’s Mot. p. 26 (quoting McWane, 263 A.2d at 283).

28 over both liabil ity an d cove rage if the co vera ge ac tion r equir es na viga ting e vol ving compla ints or extensiv e disc overy. Howe ver, th at is not the po sture here. This Court i s ma king a legal deter mination base d on a poin t - in - time s naps hot of t he alle ga tions i n the Soc ial Media Litig ation. As e stabl ished in the Montro se Stay anal ysis, M eta ha s not shown that t he pros pec tive amendm en ts woul d under mi ne the C ourt ’s concl usi on tha t Meta’s allege d co nduct was inte nti onal rat her tha n acci den tal. Conse quen tly, Delaw are i s not u ndu ly en tang ling i tself in the Soc ial Me dia Liti gati on. Met a further argue s that t he Cal ifor nia Stat e Act ion is su per ior becaus e it incl udes bre ach of c ontr act a nd bad fa ith cl aim s, mak ing it m ore c ompre hensi ve. 112 Yet th at ac tion b oil s down to the same co re issu e as the Delawar e Action — the Insurers’ dut y to de fe nd. 113 Accor din gly, t his factor do es not f avor M eta. vii. Applicab ility of Del aware Law This f actor foc uses o n Delawa re’ s inter est in th e litig atio n. 114 112 Meta ’s R eply Br. p. 21. 113 S ee In re CVS, 2022 WL 3330427, at *11 (finding that o ut of state litiga tion was “ in every substantive feature a doppelg ä nger coverage dispute . . . [b]oth actions boil down to the same core issue[.]”). 114 See BCORE Timber EC Owner LP v. Qorvo US, Inc., 2023 WL 2985250, at *6 (D el. Super. Apr. 18, 2023) (the fact or “ centers on ‘whether the controversy is depende nt upon the application of Delaware law which the cour ts of this State more properly should decide than those of a nother jurisdiction. ’”) (quoting Martinez, 86 A.3d at 11 04); GXP II, 253 A.3d at 105 (“ [T]he choice of law factor, while r elevant to establishing hardship and inconvenience, primarily focuses on

29 Delaw are’ s con nec tion to t his li tiga tio n is tha t De fenda nts a re incor porat ed here. “ Delawa re ha s an inter est in r eg ulati ng the co nduc t of ent itie s forme d und er its la ws, and thi s public interes t can weigh against gr anting forum n on conve nie ns relief.” 115 While t hat in terest i s stro nge st in ca ses i nvol ving i ssues of “sub stan tive corp orat e gov ern ance a nd s truc ture, ” t hat d oes no t ne gate Dela ware ’s “ gen er al — but importa nt — inte rest i n pro vidi ng a for um fo r res olvin g dis pute s invol vin g its c orpora te citize ns,” alth ough that i nter est “c an be outwe ighe d by t he hards hip occa sione d fr om the other fact ors[.] ” 116 To be cle ar, the Co urt r esolve s the ques tion of whe ther In sure rs have a dut y to defe nd u nder Calif ornia la w. But e ven in ca ses w here the al ter native jur isdic tio n has a c lear c ut “gr eat er inter es t in ap plyin g its subst anti ve law .. . the cho ice - of - law fac tor [ha s not r isen] to the ov erwhelm ing hards hip s tandard.” 117 Rather, “ De law are courts are w ell - equi ppe d to app ly Cal iforn ia la w, espe cia lly w here the re a re no no vel ‘Dela ware's interest in the litigation,’ a f ocus evident in the p hrasing of the fa ctor itself.”) (quoting Warburg, Pincus Ventures, L.P. v. Schrapper, 774 A.2d 264, 271 (Del. 2001)). 115 GXP I, 234 A.3d at 1198. 116 Id. 117 Royal Indem. Co. v. Gen. Motors Corp., 2005 WL 1952933, at *8 (Del. Super. July 26, 2005).

30 or open q uest ion s presen t.” 118 In fact, Meta conc edes its wi llingnes s to proce ed in Delaw are a s lon g as t he Cour t a pplie s Cal ifor nia la w. 119 Hence, thi s fac tor do es not weigh in f av or of di smis sal. Even if “[t]he on ly salie nt co nnec tio n bet ween t his a cti on an d Dela war e is the nam ed e ntit ies ’ incor pora tion or regis trati on. . . that a lone c an't s upport a ny fin ding of over whelm ing hards hip. ” 120 This f act or we ighs in fa vor o f di smis sal when c ons idere d al ongs id e the “to tali ty of the other per tine nt fac tors[,] ” and Met a has not p rovi ded the C our t a basi s to co ncl ude that the re is ove rwhelming hardship. 121 viii. Conclu sion Meta has f aile d to sho w why any of the Cryo -M aid facto r s rende r litigating in Delaw are an o ver whel min g hards hip. Moreover, a ho listic rev iew of the circ umsta nces — par tic ularl y give n the wei ght fa vori ng De lawar e — doe s not alter the Court’ s deter mi natio n. Con sequ ently, the Cour t wi ll no t dism iss thi s fir st - filed action. 118 GXP II, 253 A. 3d at 104 –05 (af firming forum non conveniens in f avor of California under a Gramercy test). Of course, the Court is not limit ed to considering settled issues. See Ber ger v. Intelident Sols., Inc., 906 A.2d 134, 137 (Del. 2006) (holding that Delaware often decides “unsettled” legal issues under the law of other jurisdictions). 119 Meta ’s Reply Br. p. 2 (“Assuming the Court applies California law, Meta has no objection to proceedin g here. ”). 120 BC ORE Timber, 2023 WL 2985250, at *8 (granting motion to dismiss for forum n on conveniens because defendant demonstrated overwhelming hardship). 121 Id.

31 4. Fai lure t o Stat e a C laim i. Standard When reviewi ng a motion to dis miss u nder R ule 12(b)(6), t he C ourt mus t deter mine “wheth er a plaint iff may rec over unde r any re asonably c onceiva ble set of circ umsta nces susce pti ble of pr oof u nder t he com pla int. ” 122 Unde r that stan dard, t he Court a cce pts all o f the non - movant's we ll - plead ed a llega tions a s tru e and dr aws a ll reas onab le infer ence s in fa vor of the non - movant. 123 Dela ware' s ple adi ng standa rd affor ds a libera l c onstr uct ion to a cla ima nt. 124 Howe ver, the C ourt d oes not ac ce pt “conc luso ry all ega tions that lac k spec ific s upp orti ng fact ual a lle gati ons.” 125 ii. Discu ssion Meta m ove s to d ismi ss the Ins urer s’ dec la rator y cla ims o n two grou nds: (i) that I nsur ers conc eded a poten tial for cove rage b y defe nding certai n claim s unde r a reser vati on of r ight s, 126 and (ii) that the incl usion of negli gence - based c ause s of action in the Soc ial Med ia Lit igat ion co mplai nts i nhere ntly tr igge rs a poten tial for “acciden t” coverage. 127 122 RGIS Int'l Transition Holdco, LLC v. Retail Servs. WIS Corp., 2024 WL 568515, at *4 (Del. Super. Feb 13, 2024) (quoting Vinton v. Grayson, 189 A.3d 695, 700 (Del. Super. 2018)). 123 Humanigen, Inc. v. Savant Neglected Diseases, LLC, 238 A.3d 194, 199 (Del. Super. 2020). 124 Travelers Cas. and Sur. C o. of Am. v. Blackbaud, Inc., 2024 WL 1298762, at *6 (Del. Super. Mar. 27, 2024). 125 Id. 126 Meta ’s Mot. p. 33. 127 Id. at p. 34.

32 Neit her a rgume nt is well - tak en. First, as a mat ter of la w, an ins urer’ s agree me nt to def en d subje ct t o a rese rvat ion of rig hts doe s not c ons titute a conce ssio n of a duty t o def end or a waive r of it s rig ht t o con test c overa ge. 128 Second, the mere labe ling of claims as n egli genc e doe s not a utom at icall y est abli sh a p oten tial for c overag e or a n ac ciden t. 129 Under C aliforn ia law, the Cour t m ust loo k pas t th e legal la be ls to the factua l co nduc t alle ged. If the unde rly ing c onduc t — su ch as the inte ntiona l des ign of platform feat ures — is stric tly del ibera te, the prese nce of a negl igenc e cou nt do es no t crea te a du ty to defe nd. 130 Because the I nsure rs h av e plead ed a rea son ably conc eiva ble ba sis f or a declar ati on of n o cov erage, the Cour t denie s Me ta’s M otio n to Dis mis s und er R ule 1 2(b)(6). C. Conclu sion For the fore goin g rea sons, Meta’ s Moti on to D ismi ss or Sta y th e Dela ware Acti on is DEN IED. 128 Indeed, as noted in the Montrose S tay analysis above, insurers defending subject to a reservatio n of rights not only do not concede coverage; they are entitled to pursue a cla im for reimbursement for over - defending the insured if they prevail in the coverage action. Great Am. Ins. Co. v. Chang, 2013 WL 3153279, at *9; see also Scottsdale Ins. Co. v. MV Transp., 115 P.3d at 470 (The insurer should be free, in an a bundance of caution, to afford the insure d a defense under a re servation of rights, with the understa nding that reimbu rsement is ava ilable if it is la ter establishe d, as a ma tter of law, that no duty to defend ever arose. ”). 129 Insurers’ Ans. Br. p. 33. 130 See, e.g., Ghukasian v. Aegis Sec. Ins. Co., 292 Cal. Rptr.3d 923, 928 (Cal. Ct. App. 2022) (finding intentional conduct exclusion applied to negligence cause of action when the harm was the result of the intended— if misinfor med —conduct, not inadvertent behavior).

33 IV. INS URE RS’ MO TI ON FO R SUMM ARY JUDGM ENT A. Standard Summary judg ment i s appr opria te u nder Rule 56 only if ther e is no g enu ine issue of ma teria l fac t and the m ovin g part y is en tit led t o summ ary j udgm ent a s a matte r of law. 131 The Cour t m ust vie w the re cord “i n the lig ht mos t favora ble to t he non - mov ing party.” 132 If the recor d r evea ls tha t m ateria l fa cts a re i n disp ute, th en summa ry j udgm ent must be de nie d. 133 In a decl ara tory re lie f action c onc erni ng a dut y to defe nd, “ the in sure d must prove t he ex istenc e o f a pote ntial f or cove rag e, whil e the in surer must e stab lis h the abse nce of any such pote ntial. In o ther w ords, the insur ed nee d onl y sh ow that th e under lyi ng cla im may f all within poli cy cove rage; th e insure r must p rove it cann ot. ” 134 Put di fferent ly, “ an ins urer may be excuse d from a duty to def end only when ‘ the thir d par ty com plai nt can by n o conce iva ble the ory ra ise a sin gle iss ue whic h cou ld br ing i t wi thin t he p olic y cov erage. ’” 135 “[I]f c overage de pends on an unres olve d dis pute o ver a factua l quest ion, the very ex iste nce of that dis pute w ould 131 Del. Super. Ct. Civ. R. 56(c). 132 Merrill v. Crothall –Am., Inc., 606 A.2d 96, 99 (Del. 1992). 133 IDT Corp. v. U.S. Spec. Ins. Co., 2019 WL 413692, at *5 (Del. Super. Ct. Jan. 31, 2019). 134 Hartford Cas. Ins. Co. v. Swift Distrib., Inc., 326 P.3d 253, 258 – 59 (C al. 2014) (quoting Montrose, 861 P.2d at 1153) (emphasis in original). 135 Id.

34 not onl y re sult in a de nial of the mo tio n, but also e stab lis h a poss ibili ty of c overa ge and t hus a d uty to def end. ” 136 B. Party P osit ions 1. Insur ers’ P ositi on Insurers move for a summary dec lara tion that they owe no duty to d efend Meta in the S ocia l Me dia Li tiga tion. 137 While the In sure rs rai se mu ltipl e arg umen ts, the Cour t foc uses it s resol utio n on the t hresh old iss ue: whe the r the un derly ing laws uits a lle ge harm cau sed b y an “ accid ent. ” Be cause the Cou rt reso lves thi s issue in the Insu rer s’ favor, it d oes n ot rea ch t he Ins urer s’ other a rgum ents. The app licab le ins ura nce pol icies pr ovi de that t he duty t o defen d is trig gered by suit s see king dam ages fo r bod ily i njur y “cau sed b y an Oc curr ence. ” 138 The partie s ag re e that “Oc currence” is synonymou s w ith accident, and tha t Calif or nia law g overn s th is inte rpre tati on. 139 Under Ca lifor nia law, an acc iden t is “an u nexpec ted, unfor esee n, or unde signe d ha ppe ning o r con seque nc e fro m ei ther a kno wn or unk nown c ause.” 140 136 McMillin Cos., LLC v. Am. Safety Indem. Co., 183 Cal. Rptr. 3d 26, 37 (Cal. Ct. App. 2015). 137 As noted above, although the Insurers seek a declaration regarding the duty to indemnify, t he Insurers seek summary judgment only on the duty to defend. 138 Insurers’ Mot. p. 12. 139 See Insurers ’ Mot. p. 12, Meta ’s Ans. Br. p. 13. See also L iberty Surplus Ins. Corp. v. Ledesma & Meyer Constr. Co., 418 P.3d 400, 403 (Cal. 2018) (hereinafter “ Lede sma ”) (“ As a gen eral matter, the me aning of the term “accid ent” in a liability insuranc e policy is settled in Calif ornia.”). 140 AIU Ins. Co. v. McKesson Corp., 2024 WL 302182, at *2 (9th Cir. Jan. 26, 2024) (he reinafter “ McKesson ”) (quoting Ledesm a, 418 P.3d at 403).

35 But “[a]n ac cide nt do es not occur whe n the insure d perf orm s a deli ber ate ac t un less some a dditi onal, unexp ecte d, inde pende nt, and unfor ese en ha ppeni ng occ urs tha t prod uces the damage.” 141 When par tie s disp ute whet her the underl ying alle gati ons al lege an ac ci dent or exclu sive ly de liber ate conduct, t he C ourt’ s tas k is es sent iall y a two - ste p inqui ry: (1) do the comp lain ts i n the Exemp lar S uits a lle ge “ an ythi ng other than str ictl y delib erate c onduct [;] ” and (2), if n ot, do they a llege an “add itio nal, u nexpe cte d, inde pend ent, a nd unf ore seen ha ppe ning ” t hat may ha ve pr oduc ed the damag e. 142 If the ans wer to both q uest ion s is no, t hen th e Cour t mu st conc lude tha t there is not a possib ility that the alle gations allege anyth ing oth er than in tentio nal conduc t, and the in surer there by has no duty t o defe nd. Insur ers contend th at th e answe r to b oth ques tions is “ no”. First, the Insure rs ar gue that the un der lying c om plai nts exc lus ivel y alle ge deliberate conduct ce ntere d on M eta’ s “ delibe rate desi gn ch oice s.” 143 They po int to the al lega tion s that M eta “ inte ntio nal ly des ign[e d]” or “ch ose” t o “de sign[] its socia l media pla tform s to at trac t and a ddi ct youth.” 144 141 N avigators Specialty Ins. Co. v. Moorefield Constr., Inc., 212 Cal. Rptr. 3d 231, 245 (Cal. C t. App. 2016) (hereinaft er “ Navigators ”). 142 McKesso n, 2024 WL 302182, at *1 (quoting Navigators, 212 Cal. Rptr. 3d at 245). 143 Insurers’ Mot. p. 14 144 Id. at pp. 14–17.

36 Insurers argu e th at the co mpla ints do not n eed to alle ge tha t Met a intended to cause harm, jus t that Meta i nte nded to e nga ge in certai n cond uct, and th at c onduc t resul ted in ha rm. 145 In sup port, the I nsurers assert that Met a’s subject ive i nte nt to cause harm is irre leva nt; 146 the acts the mse lves (t he de sign choice s) w er e inte ntiona l. 147 Becau se the har m alle gedl y flowe d dire ctl y from these deli ber at e choic es, t he Ins ure rs arg ue tha t the “acc ide nt” re quire men t is n ot met. Insurers further contend th at the inclus ion of negligen ce counts does not chang e th is res ult. The y ar gue t hat t hese are le gal labe ls of ne gligen ce t hat derive solel y from intenti onal cond uct. Under Ca lifo rnia la w, “ [w]he re ‘th e und erlying actio n alle ge s a caus e of act ion fo r ne glige nce, [b ut] t he fac tual a llega tion s refl ect inte ntiona l ac ts,’ ther e is n o dut y to de fen d.” 148 “It is thu s a ‘ misapp rehensi on ’ to concl ude ‘ that a ll cla ims f or negl ige nce mu st at lea st pot enti ally co me w ithin [a] polic y an d ther efor e gi ve ris e to a d uty to defe nd [beca use] “ [n]e gli gent ” and “ acciden tal ” are not synonym ous.’” 149 On the seco nd st ep, I nsure rs ar gue t hat t he com pla ints f ail to iden tify a n inter veni ng “u nfore se en hap peni ng” betwe en Me ta’s i nten tio nal desi gn choi ces and the resulting injuries. Instea d, the com plaints al lege that Me ta de signe d its pr oduc ts 145 Id. at pp. 12–13. 146 Id. 147 Id. 148 Id. (quoting Ghukasian, 292 Cal. Rptr. 3d at 928). 149 Id. (quoting Quan v. Truck Ins. Exch., 67 Cal. App. 4th 583, 596 (1998)).

37 specif ica lly to m aximize engagem ent, m akin g the re sulti ng i njur ies a f ore seea ble conse que nce of th at desi gn. 150 Finally, the Insurer s argu e that the actions of third - party c ont ent c reat ors a re not unfo rese en ha ppen ings, but r ather the pred icta ble result of Me ta’s p latfor m ar chi tect ure. 151 2. Meta’ s Posi tio n Met a contends that the I nsurers owe a duty to def end becau se a potent ial for cover age ex ist s as lon g as ther e is a po ssibi lit y of lia bili ty soun di ng in ne glige nce. 152 Relying on Gray v. Z uric h In s urance Co., Meta a rg ues t hat the pr ese nce of inte ntiona l tor ts alle gati ons i n the sam e compl ain t does no t nega te the po tent ial for a covered occu rrence. 153 Becau se eac h cla ss o f pla intiff s in t he un der lyin g lit igat ion has al lege d som e for m of n egl igence, Me ta ar gues t hat t he I nsur ers m ust def end the Socia l Media Litiga tion in it s entire ty. 154 Met a furthe r asser ts tha t und er Ca lifor nia law, an “a ccide nt” is c onstr ue d expan sive ly t o incl ude sit uati ons where eit her th e act or its conse quenc es ar e uninte nde d or u nfore see n from the in sure d’s per spe cti ve. 155 From Me ta’s v iew, the 150 Id. at p. 22. 151 Insurers ’ R eply B r. p. 11. 152 Meta ’s Ans. Br. p. 14. 153 Id. (citing Gray v. Zurich Ins. Co., 419 P.2d at 176). 154 Id. (providing examples); see also id. at p. 15 (citing Buss v. Super. Ct., 939 P.2d 766, 775 (Cal. 1997) (holding that insurers have a duty to defend mixed actions in their entirety)). 155 Id. at p. 16 (citing Lede sm a, 418 P.3d at 408 (sexual ass ault clai m was an u nexpected consequence); Geddes & Smith, Inc. v. St. Paul - Mercury Ind em. Co., 334 P.2d 881, 884 – 85 (Cal. 1959) (defect in intentionally distributed product w as unfores een); Meyer v. Paci fic Emp ’rs Ins.

38 desi gn ch oices c onst it ute an ac cid ent be cau se it di d no t inte nd to c ause t he re sulti ng harm, such a s ad dict ion or depr essi on. Meta furt her ar gues t hat t he al leg ed harms cons titute an “ acc iden t ” even if Meta was, as I nsurers claim, “aware of” the po tent ial ri sks. 156 Drawing a n an alogy to the as best os li tiga tion c ontex t, Me ta note s tha t the California C ourt of App eals has dis tingu ishe d gen eral kn owle dge of po tent ial har m fr om the specif ic awareness that har m is prac tical ly cer tain to occ ur. 157 Moreover, Me ta a rgue s th at ev en if th e u nderly ing compla int s all ege that Meta’s de sign c hoic es were del ibera te, they sti ll supp ort th e poss ibility that injuri es resul ted f rom unfore see n hap peni ngs. 158 Meta reitera tes that an “accide nt” occur s when a de libe rat e act trigge rs an un expe ct ed or in depen den t int erve ning eve nt. 159 To that end, Met a argues th at harmful us er - gener ate d con tent was “the non - fore seeab le in ter veni ng co nduct of thir d pa rties.” 160 Co., 43 Cal. Rptr. 542, 547 (Cal. Ct. App. 1965) (damage to neigh boring building from intentionally drilling a wa ter well was unexpected)). 156 Id. at p. 17. 157 Id. (citing Armstong World Indus., Inc v. Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co., 52 Cal. Rptr. 2d 690, 723 (Ca l. Ct. App. 1996)). 158 Id. at p. 19. 159 Meta ’s Ans. Br. p. 20 (c iting State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. v. Super. Ct., 7 8 Cal. Rptr. 3d 828, 836 (Cal. Ct. App. 2008) (impact with concrete step was an unexpected result from intentionally throwing someone in a pool); Ledesma, 418 P.3 d at 408 (s exual assaul t by emp loyee was an unforeseen consequence of hiring the employee). 160 Id. (“ See, e.g., RJN, Ex. 22 at 66 (f inding that certain Individual Plaintiffs’ allega tions “seek to hold Defendants liable for publishing t hird - party content”); id., Ex. 24 at 2 (“ certain sets of [School Distr ict Plaintiff s’] a llegations in volve the non - foreseeable intervening conduct of third parties ”).”).

39 Final ly, Me ta maintains that summar y jud gment i s pre matur e. B ecause the alleg ations in the Soc ial Media L itigatio n ar e “ co ntinuous ly evol ving, ” Meta conte nds that the f act ual rec or d is no t ye t suff ici entl y de velo ped to al low t he C our t to de term ine w hethe r the d uty t o defe nd ha s bee n tri ggere d a s a matte r of la w. 161 C. Analys is Insure rs ha ve acc ura tely s tate d the ana lyt ical f rame work. Un der the rel evant polic ies, the In surer s’ du ty to de fen d is trig ger ed on ly by su its see kin g damages cause d by a n “acc ide nt.” 162 Because the Cali fornia co urts have de velo ped extensive juri spru dence def inin g an a cci dent in the c onte xt of lia bilit y in sura nce, 163 th e parties agree t hat Cal iforn ia la w govern s the dis pute. 164 Insure rs con tend that the y owe n o duty to defen d beca use the Socia l Media Litiga tio n alle ges str ictl y delibe rate, non - accidental co nduct. 165 Meta cou nter s that t he un der lying c omp lai nts alle ge dam age s cause d by a n ac cide nt or, in th e a lterna tive, tha t th e un derly ing plain tiff s wi ll am en d the com pla ints to al lege a cci denta l occ urre nce s. 161 I d. at p. 31 (citing US Dominion, Inc. v. Newsmax Media, Inc., 2025 WL 1092289, at *11 (Del. Super. Apr. 9, 2025)). 162 Id. 163 See Ledes ma, 418 P.3d at 403 (“As a general matter, the meaning of the t erm “acci dent ” in a liability insura nce polic y is settled in Ca lifornia.”). 164 Insurers’ Mot. p. 12; Meta’s Ans. Br. p. 13. 165 Id.

40 To dete rmi ne whe ther an ac cid ent occ urre d, the Cour t foc uses on t he co ndu ct of the ins ure d (i.e., Meta). 166 Under C ali forn ia la w, this involv es a t wo - step inquiry to asse ss the alle gati ons in t he under lyi ng com pla int: (1) whethe r the com plai nt s allege an ythin g ot her tha n str ictl y del ibera te c ondu ct; 167 and (2) if not, w hethe r t he compl aint s no nethe less i den tify “ some ad diti ona l, unex pec ted, inde pende nt, and unfore se en happe nin g ” that may have pr odu ced th e dama ge. 168 The Cour t addre sses e ach ste p in turn. 1. Step One: Stric tly De libe rate Con duc t Upon r evie w of th e Cal iforn ia ca se law, the re lev ant p olic ies, and th e Soc ia l Media Litig atio n com plai nts, t he Cour t conc lude s that the underlyi ng ac tions exclu sive ly alle ge ha rm aris ing from delibe rate co ndu ct. Met a conce de s that the cond uct at is sue is its inte ntiona l desig n an d imp lem enta tion of the pla tform feat ure s aime d at ma ximiz ing user enga geme nt. 169 Meta’s pr imar y arg umen t aga inst th is find ing is t he pr esen ce of n egl igenc e - bas ed ca uses of ac tion. Meta c onte nds tha t beca use som e pla intif fs alle ged th at it “s houl d have known” tha t its des ign ch oice s could cause har m, the conduct cann ot be charact eriz ed a s str ictl y del ibera te. 166 See Led esma, 418 P.3d at 403 (“A policy providing a defense and indemnification for bodily injury cause by “‘a n accident’ ‘promise[s] coverage for liability resulting from the insured ’s negligent acts.’”) (quoting Safeco Ins. Co. of Am. v. Robert S., 28 P.3d 889, 894 (Cal. 2001)). 167 McKesso n, 2024 WL 302182, at *1. 168 Id. 169 Tr. 128:3 – 5 (META’S COUNSEL: “And our position is that we created a n app that plaintiffs allege through our negligence cause[s] addiction and harm.); Meta’s Ans. Br. p. 15.

41 The me re pr esenc e of negli gence a lle gati ons or cause s of ac tio n does n ot, by itse lf, trig ger the dut y to d efe nd. Ca lifor nia court s have repea te dly held tha t when a negl igenc e claim ar ise s from fa ctua l allega tio ns of inte nti onal co nduc t, the under lyi ng co mpla int s alle ge exc lus ivel y d eliber ate con duct. 170 “T he s cope o f the duty [t o defe nd] doe s not de pend o n the lab els giv en to the c ause s of acti on; ins tead it rests on w hethe r the alle ged f acts or kn own ex tri nsic f acts reveal a possibil ity th at the cla im may be cov ered by th e polic y.” 171 Conse que ntly, t he pr oper in quir y is n ot whet her t he un derly ing c ompla int s raise neg lige nce ca uses of ac tio n or use the wor d negl ige nce in t heir allegati ons. Rathe r, the Court m ust de term ine wheth er the c omp lai nts — once stripp ed of the under lyi ng pla intif fs ’ legal c hara cter iza tions — still a lle ge exc lusi vel y deli bera te cond uct. Just a s the Cou rt exa mine s the alle gations w ithout th e plaint iffs’ “ gl oss, ” it asses ses whe ther the y descr ibe st rict ly deli bera te con duct ba sed on wh ether the insur ed p erf ormed the a cts in que sti on, r egar dless of it s in tend ed ou tcome or reaso n for do ing so. “C al iforn ia co urts ha ve re peate dly hel d [tha t] ‘w here t he insu red inten ded all of the acts th at result ed in the vic tim's inj ury, the eve nt may not be 170 Ghukasian, 292 Cal. Rptr. 3d at 928 (insured ’s c ontractors entered a n eighbor’s property and intentionally cut down trees — the damage to the property was the result of intentional conduct, not from, e.g., “inadvertently dropping equipment”). 171 Id. (citing C unningham v. Unive rsal Underwriters, 120 Cal. Rptr. 2d 162, 167 (Cal. Ct. App. 2002)).

42 deemed an ‘ accid ent ’ merel y bec ause the i nsur ed di d not i nten d to ca use in jury. ’” 172 Indee d, the i nsur ed’ s “subje ct ive in tent” i n engag ing i n the co nduc t is “ir rele vant ” to th is inquiry; 173 t he term “ acciden t ” ref ers t o the na ture of the act gi vin g rise to th e liab ility, not t o the i nsur ed’s i nte nt to ca us e harm. 174 Meta pr ese nts tw o cate gorie s of neg lige nce allegat ion s to su ppor t its cla im of acci dent al co nduc t: (i) negli genc e in desi gnin g the pla tform s, and (ii) negl igenc e in comm unic ati ng tha t the p latf orms we re sa fe. i. Neglig ence in D esign ing th e Pl atfor m s Meta argue s tha t becau se the unde rl ying com plai nts a lleg e tha t it w as negl igen t in the d esign of its pla tfor ms, 175 the li tiga tion do es not i nvol ve e xclusively deli bera te con duc t. 176 Calif ornia cas e l aw, however, ta kes a broa d view of wh at con stit ute s exclu sive ly de lib erate co nduc t by a c orpo rate acto r. In de term ini ng whet her a duty 172 Thompson v. Crestbook Ins. Co., 296 Cal. Rptr. 3d 138, 145 (Cal. Ct. App. 2022) (quoting Merced Mutual Ins. Co. v. Mendez, 261 Cal. Rptr. 273, 279 (Cal. Ct. App. 1989)). 173 Id. 174 State Farm G en. Ins. Co. v. Frake, 128 Cal. Rptr. 3d. 301, 309 (Cal. Ct. Ap p. 2011) (h erein after “ Frake ”). To b e sure, certain earlier cases concluded that “accident” could refer to unintended conduct or unintended harm. See, e.g., State Farm Fire & Cas., 78 Cal. Rptr. 3d at 833. Howev er, these cas es pred ated t he Cal iforni a Suprem e Cou rt case Delgado v. Interi nsurance Exch. of the Auto. Club of Southern Cal., 211 P.3d 1083 (Cal. 2009). Frake explains that Delgado “clari fied.. . the definition of “accident” . . . to ref er[] to the injury-producing acts of the insured[,]” and “an intentional act is not transformed into an accident merely because the insured was operating under some m istake o f fact.” Fra ke, 128 Cal. Rptr. 3d at 314. A ccordingly, it is n o longer good law that an accident can arise merely from unintended harm. 175 Meta highlights, inter alia, I ndividuals’ MDL Compl. ¶ 884; Individuals ’ JCCP Compl. ¶ 884; School Distric ts ’ MDL Complaint ¶¶ 1035, 1040; New Hampshire Complaint (RJN Ex. 12) ¶ 317. 176 Meta’s Ans. Br. p. 6.

43 to defe nd e xist s, c ourts prior itize the f act ual n ature of t he ac ts over the lega l labe ls attac hed t o them. Key ca ses ill ustr ate thi s princ iple: i n Tr avele r’s Pr oper ty Casu alt y Co. o f Ame rica v. Actavis, the Califor nia Court of Ap pea ls concl uded t hat alle gati ons of a “ comm on, sophi stic ate d, an d hi ghly de cep tive m ar keti ng ca mpa ign ” to in crease opioi d sale s c ould o nly de scr ibe “ del iber ate, inte ntiona l ac ts [,] ” reg ardless of any negl igenc e the orie s. 177 In Jame s Rive r I nsura nce C o. v. SureFire, a fede ral court apply ing Calif ornia law f ound no duty to defen d a gun a cces sory m anu factur e r again st negl igenc e cl aim s ste mmin g fr om a ma ss sho oti ng. 178 The court ruled that the cla im s addr esse d the com pan y’s i ntent iona l marke tin g de cisi ons ra ther tha n acci dent al mis takes, n oting t hat t he com pla int di d not a llege a “ mi stake ” (e. g., a typo or mispr int) in the com pany’ s advertis ing. 179 In A IU Ins uranc e Co. v. Mc Kesson Corp., the N int h Ci rcuit af firm ed that t he ins ured pharma ce utica l dis trib utor ’s methods constit uted de liberat e acts bec ause the complaint s did not alleg e “conduct whic h [the i nsure d] pla usib ly cou ld ha ve e ngage d in by acc ide nt ” and never alle ge d that s uch c ond uct wa s acciden t al. 180 In ea ch o f the se ca ses, Ca lifor nia c our t s asses sed whe ther c o nduc t was exclu sive ly de libe rate by exa mini ng the ove rarc hing p urpo se of the a cts a nd 177 Travelers Prop. Cas. Co. of Am. v. Actavis, Inc., 225 Cal. Rptr. 3d 5, 18 (Cal. Ct. App. 2017) (interna l quotations omitte d). 178 James River Ins. Co. v. SureFire, LLC, 2025 WL 1287891, at *9 (C.D. Cal. Mar. 6, 2025) (note that this decision is currently on appeal). 179 Id. 180 McKesso n, 2024 WL 302182, at *2.

44 deter min ing whe ther the c ompl ain ts allege d any truly in adver tent or no nvolitio nal behav ior. Because Meta’ s platf orm de sign ch oice s — as al lege d — we re volunt ary busine ss de ci sions a im ed at i ncre asi ng en gageme nt, they f all squarely w ithin this broad de fin itio n of delibe rate conduc t. This e xpa nsive vie w is re infor ced by more “ groun ded ” preceden ts l ike G hukasia n v. Aeg is Sec ur ity In suranc e Co., and Albert v. Mid - Cent ury Ins urance Co. In both c ases, the act of h iring and dire cting con trac tors to la ndsca pe s pec ific areas wa s held to be stric tly del iber ate. 181 Althou gh t he in sured s arg ued t hat t he y mista ken ly belie ved that they o wned t he pr opert y, the court s hel d that s uch a m istak e was “irr eleva nt” to the de libe rat e act s inqu iry. Because t he co ntra ctor s did not engage in inad vert ent or nonvo litiona l conduct — suc h as dr oppi ng a c hai nsaw — the acts rema ine d stric tly delibera te rega rdl ess of the insure ds’ su bje ctive inte nt. To det ermine wheth er the S ocial Media Liti gati on complaint s alleg e inad verte nt c ond uct by M eta, t he C ourt look s to t he alle ged ge nera l pur pose o f 181 See Ghukasian, 292 Cal. Rptr. 3d at 927 (insured hired contractors to cut down trees a nd level land, and her mistaken belief that she owned t he property was not an intervening cause); see also Albert v. Mid - Ce ntury Ins. C o., 187 Cal. Rptr. 3d 2 11, 219 (Cal. Ct. App. 2015) (r ejecting insured’s effor ts to speculate th at the har m from her de liberate act of tree trimming could ha ve resulte d from an intervening cause — the p roverb ial “slip o f th e chain saw” — when no evi dence supporte d that conclusion); Delgado, 211 P.3d at 1089 (“ [C] ourts have in insurance cases rejected the notion that an insured’s mistake of fact or l aw transforms a knowingly and purposefully inflicted harm into an accidental injury”).

45 Meta’ s desi gn cho ices. 182 Meta concede s that the plain tiff s alle ge the se choi ces w ere made to “ma ximiz e eng agem ent.” 183 It is ther efore unas saila ble th at the co mplaints allege that Meta ’s cond uct was a pur pos eful eff ort to ope rate and maxim ize it s platf orm s. To demo nstra te a pote nti al for cove rag e, Me ta w ould nee d to id enti fy allega tio ns o f tru ly ina dve rten t con duct anal ogo us to the a dve rti sing m ispr int in Sure Fire or sli p of the c ha insa w in Albe rt. Meta p oints t o no suc h alle gati ons. Conse que ntly, M eta’ s ne glige nce ex em plars r egar din g the de sig n of it s pla tform s descr ibe c onduc t tha t is le gal ly la beled as n egli gent but is f act ually inte nti onal. 184 Meta also address es allega tio ns that it “sho uld ha ve kno wn” its d esig n choice s would c au se har m. This phrasing does n ot sug gest that M eta acte d b y mis take; r ather, it estab lish es a fore seea ble r isk o f harm ste mmin g fr om Me ta’s d eli bera te act ion s. 185 Meta’ s own co unse l reinf orce d this d urin g oral arg ume nt, sta ting t hat Me ta “ cre ate d an app tha t pla int iffs a llege thr ough our negl igen ce cause [s] addi ction a nd 182 The Court notes the inherent tension between the holdings that “subjective intent is irreleva nt to intent[,]” and California courts’ inquiry into the insured’s purpose in carrying out the conduct. It appears that purpose, unl ike subjective intent, is something akin to the insured’s undeniable, high- level motive in pursuing the course of ac tion (e.g., sell guns, sell drugs, cut trees), while intent maps more closely onto the who/what/when/where/why/how of t he purpose. The pu rpose is then juxtaposed against the allegedly negligent or accid ental conduct. 183 See Meta ’s Ans. Br. p. 15. Notably, Meta does not articulate an alternative intent for its conduct. 184 McKesso n, 2024 WL 302182, at *2 (citing Quan, 67 Cal. App. 4th at 598–99). 185 Id.

46 harm.” 186 This adm iss ion co nfirm s that whi le the outcom e is fr amed as negl ig ence, the underlying act — creatin g and de ployi ng the pl atfor ms — wa s inte nti onal. ii. Negligence in Failing to Warn In its table of e xempl ars, M eta i dent ifies alle gati ons th at it was negl igent i n faili ng to c omm unica te the p latf orms’ ris ks. 187 Des pite th e neglige nce glo ss, t hese allega tio ns re flect e xclu sivel y deli bera te c onduct. Unde r Cal iforn ia la w, “[c] la ims invol vin g inte ntion al or ne gli gent mi srepr esen tati ons d o not con stit ute an a ccid en t unde r a liabilit y po licy,” 188 and these are fu ndame ntal ly misrep resent ation cla ims. More over, these a llega tion s desc ribe c ondu ct inex tric abl y inter twine d with M eta’ s deli bera te opera tion of its pla tforms a nd its p urpo sef ul desi gn choic es. 189 Hence, Meta has failed to ide ntif y any al lega tion s that prov ide a ba sis f or neg lige nce lia bil it y inde pend ent of its in tent ion al bu sine ss dec isio ns. 186 Tr. 128:3–5. 187 Individuals’ MDL Compl. ¶ 994 (“Meta negligently misled users and their par ents” into “believi ng [it s services ] were saf e.”); M eta’s Ans. Br. p. 6 (charac terizing paragraphs of the Stat e AGs’ JCCP Complain t as alleging that “[Meta] should have known its representations regarding the safet y of its services were mi sleadin g.”). For clarity, Meta has not distinguished the “failure to warn” allegations from the “design choices” all egations. Meta’s arguments focused on design choices, but it is the Court’s impression that a cause of action (and concomitant allegations) for a failure to warn could provide potential bas es for negligence distinct from allegations regarding activel y delib erate con duct. 188 Actavis, 225 Cal. Rptr. 3d at 17–18 (collect ing c ases). 189 See Sure F ire, 2025 WL 1287891, at *8 – 9 (analogizing McKesson to find that negligence causes of actio n arose out of del iberate a cts wh en the cl aims were for th e insu red’s f ailure to warn ab out the har m it was causing through its delib erate acts); Marie Y. v. Gen. St ar Indem. C o., 2 Cal. R ptr. 3d 135, 157 (Cal. Ct. App. 2003) (finding that an e mployee’s failure to report ongoing sexual violence being committ ed by her employer did not constitute negligence separate from the employer’s intentional acts because, in par t, without the employer’s misconduct, “there was nothing wrongful for the [employees] to report.”).

47 2. Step T wo: Unf oresee n Ha ppen ing Havi ng de term ine d tha t Meta’ s c onduc t wa s del iber ate under Ca lifor nia l aw, the Co urt ne xt c onsi ders w hethe r the comp lain ts iden tif y any “ a dditio nal, unexp ected, ind ependen t, and unf oresee n happenin g ” that pr odu ced the dama ge. 190 The Cou rt must dete rmi ne whet her the al lege d injuri es were “ indire ct u ninte nde d result s ” caused by “ fo rtui ties ou tside [Met a] ’s con trol, ” or the direct re sul t of Meta’ s allege dly de libe rate c onduc t. 191 Two ana lyse s are re levan t here: (1) whethe r t he all eged harm s could be chara cter ized a s unf or eseen fr om Me ta’s p ers pecti ve, 192 and (2) whet her the harm s resul ted f rom an inde pende nt, unfo rese eab le ac t by a t hird party. 193 i. Harm s not Unfore se eable Meta c onte nds that the spec ific harms a r ticu lated in the a lleg atio ns wer e unfore se eable. 194 However, t he unde rlying alle gations do not su pport a co nclusion that t he se h arms wer e fortui tous. 190 Zogenix, Inc. v. Fed. Ins. Co., 2022 WL 3908529, at *6 (N.D. Cal. May 26, 2022) (quoting Actavis, 225 Cal. Rptr. 3d at 16)). 191 McKesson, 2024 WL 302182, at *3 (citing Actavis, 225 Cal. Rptr. 3d at 18) (finding that dea ths from drug addiction were the direct result of the insured “flood[ing] the market with opioids”). 192 See Actavi s, 225 Cal. Rptr. 3d at 18. 193 See id. at 19 (“The role of doctors in prescr ibing, or misprescribing, opioids is not an independent or unforeseen happening.”). 194 See, e.g., Tr. 117:19 – 118:2 (META’S COUNSE L: “ I think our position is that we didn't anticipate that that content would lead to the bodil y injuries that are alleged here, including eating disorders, suicidality, self - harm, other type s of bodily injury that plaintiffs allege they sustained from viewing third - pa rty content.”).

48 An instr uct ive, if vivid, case illustr ates this ana lys is. In State Farm Gen eral Insu rance Co. v. Frake, a Ca lifor nia c ourt rejec te d an insure d’s c la im that te stic ular dama ge was u nfore se eable following a deli bera te kick to the groin. 195 Although the insur ed did n ot in tend to cause t hat pa rt icul ar inju ry, t he cour t held t hat b y tar geti ng the area, it wa s “ completel y foreseea ble and expec ted ” that harm would r esult. 196 This is a que stio n of causal pr oxim ity: th e Cour t mus t deter mi ne whe ther t he ha rms artic ula ted i n the S ocial M ed ia Li tiga tion fa ll w ithin t he f oresee ab le range of outc omes f rom i mple ment ing a desi gn c hoice inte nde d to increa se c hil d engageme nt. Navig ato rs Speci alty I nsura nce Co. v. Mo oref ield I nstr ucti on, I nc. provi des usefu l — if le ss evo ca tive — guida nce o n the quest ion of prox imit y. 197 Rulin g on a fact ual rec ord, the court c oncl uded that moist ure da mage to a fl oor wa s no t unfore se eable because the insur ed i nstall ed car pet ti les despit e knowing — though unde restimatin g — the r isk of vapor e mi ssion s. 198 The harm wa s no t the re sul t of “for tuity” — it wa s a known r isk. 199 Simil arl y, in McKesson, the co urt found “simply 195 Frake, 128 Cal. Rptr. 3d at 311. 196 Id. 197 Navigators, 212 Cal. Rptr. 3d at 258. 198 Id. at 247. 199 Id.; see also Charter O ak Fire Ins. Co. v. Ultimat e Concrete LLC, 2023 WL 6370628, at *9 (S.D. Cal. Aug. 21, 2023) (f inding no accident in the destru ction of the Cheese Wall a rt installatio n when the wall’s destruction was not a “c ompletely unforeseen event” and the underlying complaints alleged that the insured “induced, en couraged, or supported the destruction of the Cheese W all.”).

49 not cre dib le” tha t an opioi d dis trib utor’ s in tende d distri bution m ethod s would result in ad dict ion a nd dea th b y “mer e matter of fortu ity [.] ” 200 Applyin g this fra me work, the S ocia l Me dia Li tiga tio n comp lai nts a dequa tely allege tha t it wa s no t “m ere f ortu ity” t hat youth - orien ted p latf orm s — del ibera te ly desi gned t o maxim ize engage men t thro ugh algor ithm ic con sump tio n — would r esult in ch ildre n bec omin g addic te d or othe rwis e suf fering the alle ged ha rms. ii. Impac t of Th ird - Party C ontent Meta argue s tha t be cau se its platforms h ost user - genera te d conte nt, the harmf ul na ture of th at conte nt const itut es an u nfor esee n happ eni ng. 201 Meta relie s on Libert y Su rplus Insu ranc e Cor p. v. Ledesma & Meye r Cons truc tion C o. for the prop ositi on tha t in depe nden t tort ious c ondu ct by a thir d part y can qualif y as an acci dent al, une xpe cte d con seque nce. 202 In L edesma, the court held th at an emplo yer’ s neglige nt hiri ng was an “o ccu rren ce ” b ec ause a n emplo yee’s se xua l assau lt of a m inor was an unfor esee n, inde pend ent t orti ous eve nt fr om th e em plo yer’s pe rs pecti ve. 203 200 McKesso n, 2024 WL 302182, at *4. 201 Individuals’ Master Compl. ¶ 114 (addressing harm from “thinspiration” and “fitspiration” content); RJN Ex. 2 ¶¶ 190, 389 (“ extreme” third party content); School Districts’ JCCP Compla int ¶ 794 (threats to school p roperty and staff); State AG s’ JCCP Compl. ¶ 489 (“harmful third -party content involving bullying and harassment”). 202 Meta Ans. Br. p. 20. 203 Ledesma, 418 P.3d at 408.

50 Lede sma does not l end i tsel f to a bri ght - l ine r ule for ide ntif ying unf ore seen happe nin gs, but subs equen t juri spru dence pro vide s crit ical nua nce. In McK esson, the Ni nth C ircui t Cou rt rej ecte d an o pioid dist ribu tor’ s argum en t that a ddic tio n was caused “more i mme diate ly” by the doc tor s, phar mac ists, and use rs, find ing that th ese inter veni ng act s wer e “funct ion ally in evit able and e ntire ly for esee able resu lts ” of th e insur ed’s m ark etin g and distr ibut ion. ” 204 Simila rl y, in Sure F ire, the c ourt held that because the underlying lawsui ts allege d that a mass shooting w as “ depe ndent on” a gu n accessory manufacturer’ s inte ntiona l ad verti sing, the sho oter’ s con duct wa s not a for tuitou s or unf orese en happe nin g. 205 The a llega tio ns in the underlyi ng liti gation are more analogous to thos e in McKess on and Sure F ire. Spec if icall y, the S ocial Media Li tigati on p lainti ffs allege — a nd Meta concedes that the y al lege — that the pla tfor ms were speci fic ally engi neer ed to m axi mize e nga geme nt, i nclu din g thro ugh a lgo rithm ic de live ry o f thir d - part y con tent. It was n ot “m ere fo rtu ity” t hat t hese de sig n cho ices le d to t he allege d ha rms. Beca use th e crea tio n and cons umpt ion of thir d - par ty co nten t is t he funct iona l and i nte nded re sult of Met a’s de libe rat e pla tfor m arch itec tur e (as alle ged), 204 McKesso n, 2024 WL 302182, at *3–4. 205 SureF ire, 2025 WL 1287891, at *10.

51 it is simi larly not a f ortu ity that thir d part ies w oul d crea te en gagi ng, yet p otenti all y harmf ul, c onte nt f or use on t he pla tform s. 3. The P rosp ect of Futur e All egation s The Co urt c oncl ude s that u nder C alif ornia law, the alle ga tions i n the S ocial Media Litig ation — as prese ntl y con stitu ted — do not mee t th e def initi on of an “ acciden t. ” Howe ver, this is n ot t he end o f the inqui ry. Me ta ar gues that the Ins ure rs still ow e a dut y to defe nd beca use the unde rlyi ng comp lain ts could b e amend ed to incl ude co verage - tr ig gerin g alle gati ons. 206 Calif ornia c ourts h ave une quiv oca lly held that t he du ty to de fend is not trig gere d by a n ins ured’ s spe cu lati on a bout unal lege d fac ts or the poss ibi lity of future amen dm ent s. 207 To the e xten t Califor nia cou rts ha ve fo und a duty to de fe nd based o n pote nti al ame ndme nts, suc h a dut y is limi ted to situati ons whe re the amen dmen t wou ld alle ge new c ause s of act ion “sup port ed by the facts a lrea dy ple d in the com plai nt.” 208 B ecause t he underl ying compl aints here a llege e xclu sive l y 206 See, e.g., Tr. 129:22 – 130:3 (arguing cases are “still in flux,” so the underlying complaints coul d be amended to al lege neg ligen ce “down t he road. ”). 207 G underson v. Fire Ins. Exch., 44 Cal. Rptr. 2d 272, 277 (Cal. Ct. App. 1995) (“An insured ma y not trigger the duty to de fend by speculating about extra neous ‘facts’ regarding potential liability or ways in which the th ird party claima nt might amen d its complaint a t some f uture da te.”). To be sure, in the land mark cas e Gray v. Zurich Insurance Co., the California Supreme Court held that an insurer had a duty to defend in part because the underlying plaintiff “co uld have amended his complaint to allege merely negligent conduc t.” 419 P.2d at 177. But in Gray, the court recognized an additional cause of action available upon the facts already allege d — it was a new legal theory, not a fact ual on e. 208 Upper De ck Co., 358 F. 3d at 615 (collecting cases).

52 delib erate c onduct and conta in no a lle gati ons of unf ore see n hap pening s, an y coverage - trigge rin g ame ndme nt wo uld re quir e the in trod ucti on of ent irel y new fa cts. Accor din gly, the possi bil ity of suc h amen dment s is pure ly specula tive and c annot defeat summary judgm ent. 209 Furthe r, as the Court con cluded in its orde r deny ing th e Montro se S tay, th ere are no vi able as ser tions of extr insic fact s kn own t o Ins ure rs t hat w o uld pr ovide a basi s for c overa ge beyond the cu rr ent al legati ons in the compla int s. D. Conclu sion Accor din gly, I nsur ers ’ Mot ion for Par tial S umma ry Ju dgme nt is GRAN TE D. Insure rs do not h ave a duty t o def end Me ta in the S ocia l Me dia Li tiga tion be cau se no alle gations — whether ex pre ss, inf erable, or extr insi c — support a conclus ion th at Meta’ s con duct was a cci denta l. 209 Id.

53 V. CO NCLUS ION For th ese reaso ns, the Court DENIES Meta’s Motion to Dismiss or Sta y and GRANTS Ins urer s’ Mo tion f or Par tia l Su mmar y Judgm en t. IT IS SO O RDE RED. _ _ ___ ___ ___ __ __ __ ___ S he ld o n K. R e n nie, Ju dg e