A more charitable explanation is they may care, but their organization might not put their money where their mouth is.
Also organizations are not monolithic singular minds, especially as they get bigger and bigger. They are groups of people and one end doesn't talk to the other is quite common.
I would expect that marketing has the uncommitted resources to spare in ways that development does not. How many weeks of engineer-team-time in SF or London will $100k get you? One, maybe?
I find a lot of questions, such as this one, boil down to resource management. It's easy to look in from the outside, judge an organization based on what you can see of its resource allocation, and use this to infer emotions. Thus $ORG does clearly not care about $SUBJECT.
Some strange alchemy has now taken place. The question is suddenly no longer about resources and priorities. Now it's about empathy, compassion, decency, and human dignity. To fail to share someone's priorities is now to imply that you do not regard them as human.
When questions of infinite competing priorities over finite resources are rendered into questions of human dignity, it's been my experience that genuine discourse becomes impossible. Perhaps that is the point.
Those of us who are affected by inaccessibility don't have the luxury of coldly viewing this as a resource management problem. Sure, the company has limited resources and pressing needs, but so do we.
Nevertheless, I appreciate that talking about whether a company or its leadership care about this stuff is beside the point. I'm calling on Cloudflare to do the right thing, regardless of whether they care about it.
Also organizations are not monolithic singular minds, especially as they get bigger and bigger. They are groups of people and one end doesn't talk to the other is quite common.