Snap Wants to be a State Actor??–Kansas v. Snap
a day ago
- Snap attempted to keep a Kansas lawsuit in federal court by claiming it acted under federal officers, but the court rejected this, remanding the case to state court.
- The case stems from Kansas Attorney General Kobach's allegations that Snap engaged in deceptive practices by lying about app ratings and designing addictive features.
- Snap's argument was based on its work with DHS and FDA for campaigns like Know2Protect and anti-tobacco initiatives, which involved advertising and custom lenses.
- The court found Snap's relationship with federal agencies was a standard commercial transaction, lacking the 'strict guidance or control' needed for federal officer status.
- This move risked making Snap a state actor, which would trigger constitutional obligations and potentially costly content moderation lawsuits.
- A conflicting Florida ruling allowed Snap to use a similar argument, creating legal uncertainty, especially as an appeal heads to the 11th Circuit.
- Snap's actions may give future plaintiffs ammunition to claim government-directed censorship, leading to long-term legal exposure.
- The court noted some of Snap's work, like lens production, did not involve direct federal supervision, undermining its federal officer claim.