Snap Tries to Be a Government Actor to Move a Lawsuit—and Hands Plaintiffs a Weapon
Snap Wants to be a State Actor??–Kansas v. Snap
Kansas Attorney General Kobach sued Snap over deceptive and addictive practices. Snap removed the case to federal court, arguing it acted under federal direction through its work for DHS and FDA. The court remanded, finding no strict guidance or control. Eric Goldman warns that Snap's argument gives future plaintiffs easy material to claim Snap is a state actor when moderating content—a potentially existential legal risk for a small procedural win.
Snap has provided plaintiffs with easy cut-and-paste material to support those plaintiffs’ claims that Snap 'censored' them on behalf of the US government.
- Terr_
If we assume Snap's legal department is competent and sane, does that suggest any interesting hidden motives?
For example, is it possible that they were coerced into doing something state-actor-y for the federal government, but they're not allowed to mention it because their speech has been stifled with a National Security Letter? (I know some lower courts ruled them unconstitutional in the past, but I'm not sure what the current status-quo is.)
"Oh, we're so sorry, oh most-honored and wise and ethical Executive Branch, we tried to cooperate, but somehow that Judicial Branch just started telling us we can't..."
- cremp
As someone whose seen first hand how addictive it can be among adults with type A personality, and how it causes relationship issues because they can't stop consuming the content - it feels to me true about the lawsuit itself, but all other social media is doing the same doom-scrolling.
Why Snap is choosing to list it's ties with DHS to get into federal court is confusing - what benefits would Snap get by going to federal?
- Ellis_dev
Guess Snap's data collection became so comprehensive that states are comparing them to a government entity. Wild times.