The jury box was already filling up. Then Snap blinked.

The company has settled with two teenagers, identified in court papers as K.D.B. and S.J., who say Snapchat fed their self-harm and other mental health struggles, according to Engadget. Jury selection began last week. Opening statements were slated for this month. They won't happen.

The terms are under wraps. What we can say is who dodges the witness stand: CEO Evan Spiegel, who would have been the first Snapchat founder to testify at a social media addiction trial.

One by one, the defendants fold

This social media addiction lawsuit has been losing defendants for a while, like a dinner party where guests keep remembering early mornings. The two teens had already struck deals with Meta, YouTube and TikTok. Meta settled just last week, leaving Snap alone at the defense table. That's an uncomfortable place to sit when your chief executive is on the witness list.

Emily Jeffcott, a lawyer for K.D.B., said the agreements "allow us to keep building toward that goal," meaning accountability for how the platforms have affected kids nationwide. Snap called the outcome amicable and said user safety and well-being remain priorities.

The pattern isn't subtle. Earlier this year a 20-year-old woman sued Meta, YouTube, Snap and TikTok over harms she traced to her childhood. Snap and TikTok settled before trial. Meta and YouTube faced a jury and lost, ordered to pay $6 million in damages. That's pocket change for companies that size, but a verdict is a verdict, and other plaintiffs can use it as a template.

So, the math from the defense side: a confidential check is cheaper than a public record. It also keeps executives out of a courtroom where a lawyer gets to ask uncomfortable questions in front of twelve strangers.

The catch is that settlements teach the public very little. No findings, no testimony, no internal documents aired under oath. Both Meta and Snap still face a long list of other suits over addiction and safety, so the next trial date is the one to watch. Sooner or later, presumably, somebody will let a jury hear the whole thing.

Meanwhile, your inbox has an assistant

A quieter privacy fight is playing out in Gmail. Google has spent this year adding Gemini features to its email suite: summaries of recent messages, to-do lists, drafted replies, voice commands. Many of the free ones are switched on by default, which is why people keep asking whether their mail is being fed to the machine.

The short answer, per an Engadget explainer, is yes and no. Gemini has to read your messages to summarize them. But in an April 2026 statement, Google said it doesn't use your personal emails to train its foundational models, Gemini included, and that the assistant doesn't hold onto your data after finishing a task.

The fine print is where it gets fiddly. Google's policy says Workspace data isn't used to train its broader models "without permission." Link your Workspace apps to Search services, the connection behind AI Mode, and the rules change. Google says Search doesn't train directly on your inbox, yet it can learn from summaries, snippets and inferences pulled from your emails and files to sharpen its answers.

A lawyer could love that distinction. You'd be forgiven for missing it.

How to dial it back

On the web, click the gear icon, choose See all settings, and find the Smart features option on the General tab. Uncheck it. Then head to the Google Workspace smart features section and open its settings page, where two switches need to go off before you save. In the mobile app, tap the three lines, scroll to Settings, pick your account and follow the same route. The choice applies to your whole account, so it's a one-time chore.

There's a cost. Switching off smart features can also disable spelling and grammar checks, which feels like paying a toll to keep the basics. If you'd rather keep the AI but limit what feeds Google's training, you can tweak the history and recommendation controls tied to Search services instead.

Two stories, one question: who gets to decide what these platforms do with the people using them? For now the answers are coming from settlement negotiations and settings menus. Whether a courtroom or a regulator ever supplies a cleaner one is still an open bet.