Snap settles teen harm suit as parents sue Google over Gemini in schools

Snap quietly settled a lawsuit this week claiming its app caused severe psychological distress to two teenagers, sparing CEO Evan Spiegel from testifying in a Los Angeles courtroom. The deal landed days after Google was sued by parents who say their child suffered a psychological crisis after chatting with the Gemini AI chatbot inside Google Classroom.

The two cases mark a new phase in the legal fight over children and technology. For a decade, plaintiffs attacked social media. Now they're turning the same playbook on artificial intelligence, just as AI companies chase trillion-dollar valuations and push their products into K-12 classrooms.

Meta, TikTok and YouTube had already settled with the plaintiffs in the same suit Snap resolved this week. Google is the new target, and the allegations center on its flagship AI product for schools.

What does the Snap settlement actually resolve?

The confidential deal ends one of several lawsuits tied to the social media personal injury trial that Meta and YouTube lost earlier this year. More trials are scheduled to begin in March.

Joseph McNally, director of emerging litigation at McNicholas & McNicholas and a former acting U.S. attorney for the Central District of California, said the settlement continues a broader pattern: tech companies trying to avoid public scrutiny while high-profile child-safety trials play out this year.

"I view this settlement and the other settlements in this space as an effort by tech companies to turn a corner, not only because I think that there were real legal challenges, but also the reputation of their products, the reputation of their companies has really been hit," McNally said.

A Snap spokesperson struck a conciliatory tone in a statement: "The parties are pleased to have been able to resolve this matter in an amicable manner."

The spokesperson added: "We've built safeguards, launched safety tutorials, and partnered with experts and because safety is never finished, we remain committed to continually strengthening the safety, privacy, and well-being of our community."

The settlement does not close the book. A federal case involving Meta, TikTok, Snap and YouTube and a long list of nationwide school districts remains active, alongside suits from various state attorneys general. In August, Meta agreed to pay nearly $17 billion to settle with a group of state AGs in a child mental health case. Some attorneys general are still pursuing similar suits against Meta's rivals.

Why did parents sue Google over Gemini?

The new Google lawsuit centers on a teenager's alleged suicidal crisis. The parents attribute it to the company's Gemini AI, and their attorneys argue the company moved too fast in shipping it to schools.

The plaintiff's attorneys allege that "despite Gemini's known risks, Google hastily integrated" Gemini into Chromebook computers for school children.

A Google spokesperson responded in a statement: "We are reviewing the claims in the lawsuit and we take this very seriously. We've worked extensively with medical professionals and academic experts to build features that help young people find critical support and trusted resources when they need it."

The lawsuit arrived the same week Google drew separate criticism for its school policies. The New York Times reported on Tuesday that K-12 schools which don't allow student use of Google's AI tools will lose access to Google search. Chris Phillips, Google's vice president for education, told the Times: "Search and AI are deeply integrated."

That bundling matters because it ties a foundational educational tool, search, to a newer and less tested one, generative AI. Schools that want one must now accept both, at a moment when courts are only beginning to weigh what these products do to children.

How does Section 230 shape this litigation?

Google and its internet peers have relied for decades on Section 230, the federal law passed in 1996 that shields online platforms from lawsuits over content their users post. That protection explains why plaintiffs' attorneys and state AGs have built their cases around platform design rather than content, arguing the products themselves are harmful.

Some plaintiffs are now applying the same strategy to AI. OpenAI faces several lawsuits from state AGs and private attorneys, taking cues from the social media suits and alleging that the design of ChatGPT can pose risks to children.

The financial stakes are climbing. OpenAI is planning a potential blockbuster IPO, and mounting litigation could become a growing financial risk as it approaches public markets. Anthropic, OpenAI's competitor, is planning to go public this month and flagged the issue in its prospectus, even though the Claude maker prohibits children from using its product.

Michele Neitz, a professor at the University of San Francisco School of Law, read the disclosure as a signal. "This is a clear indication that tech companies anticipate more litigation risks than they did a decade ago," she said.

What do researchers say about AI chatbots and kids?

Developmental psychologist Kate Blocker, director of research and programs at the nonprofit Children and Screens, said engagement-maximizing products can harm young users and called for "broader systemic changes in tech design, particularly when children are using them."

She said the highly personalized nature of AI-powered chat apps makes it "a little bit unpredictable" to determine exactly what the apps will say to kids. Her argument is about timing: safety testing needs to happen at the design stage.

"I think it's so so important that children's safety is being considered when these products — AI, social media, et cetera — are being designed, and not after the fact as these problems emerge," Blocker said. She stressed the importance of testing products for children's developmental safety from the start, "not after harms start happening."

Blocker also sees a larger function in the wave of lawsuits. This collective litigation, she said, has helped educate the public on the potential pitfalls of poor product design choices, and it could become a catalyzing force for change across the tech industry.

"Certainly there's a hope that this will motivate real systemic change, both from a regulation standpoint and internal company decision-making standpoint," Blocker said.

Why does this matter beyond the courtroom?

McNally said the social media lawsuits have already done informational work, helping parents and the public understand how the industry designs products used by teenagers and children. In his view, the underlying pressure hasn't let up.

"It's the technology arms race that continues," he said. "What is oftentimes missing is how you balance that participation in the arms race with utility and then product safety."

That question now sits squarely in front of the AI industry. The same companies defending design choices in court are simultaneously integrating AI into the tools millions of schoolchildren use daily, with trials set to resume in March and public offerings on the calendar this month. How courts treat design-based claims against AI, rather than content-based claims against platforms, will shape both the legal exposure and the product roadmaps of companies racing to put chatbots in classrooms.

If you are having suicidal thoughts or are in distress, contact the Suicide & Crisis Lifeline at 988 for support and assistance from a trained counselor.