Snap Wants to be a State Actor??

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..."

▲

drooopy 40 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-]

My idiot brain's first thought was "goddamn Canonical and their feature creep nonsense. what the hell have they done now?" before reading the article.

▲

cremp 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

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?

▲

dreamcompiler 3 hours ago | parent [-]

Probably they expect the Trump administration to give them friendlier treatment than Kansas would.

	▲	cassonmars 3 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Probably not, the current (and hopefully not continuing) state admin (outside of the governor who has been a nice check against the legislature and judicial insanity here) is very ideologically aligned to the point of trying to find ways to imprison trans people.

▲

Ellis_dev 6 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Guess Snap's data collection became so comprehensive that states are comparing them to a government entity. Wild times.

	▲	xethos 5 hours ago \| parent [-]
		> states are comparing them to a government entity You've got it backwards: Snap said they were doing the bidding of the DHS and the FDA, and as such, their case belongs in Federal court. It was the court that said "No, you aren't, this is going back to state-level court". Per TFA (quoting State v. Snap, Inc., 2026 WL 2525593 (D. Kansas Aug. 27, 2026)): > "No doubt, Snap performed some services for federal officers. Some of those services—like advertising on Snapchat—reflect no more than a standard arms-length commercial transaction. Other services, like lens production and custom research, didn’t involve a federal officer’s “strict guidance or control” over Snap. Snap thus has failed to identify any conduct that qualifies it as acting under a federal officer"

▲

Marchant_hq 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Wild move for Snap to try claiming state actor status. Definitely sets a strange precedent for corporate liability and user data.

	▲	jsrozner an hour ago \| parent [-]
		Maybe Snap's lawyer's AI did not see the second order effects of the idea.

▲

Mugshelf 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Snap aiming for sovereign immunity? Next they'll be issuing passports. That's a truly wild legal argument.

▲

phendrenad2 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Smith-Mundt Modernization Act as an excuse for addictive algorithms, what a time to be alive.

▲

sky2224 6 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Huh, this explains why I've seen some pretty wildly obtuse far right posts being promoted to the top of the discover page on Snapchat.