Snap Wants to be a State Actor??–Kansas v. Snap
In Kansas v. Snap, Snap bizarrely argued it acted under federal direction for DHS and FDA campaigns to move a lawsuit to federal court, risking state-actor status.
read it Essential reading for understanding why tech platforms fiercely guard against state-actor status during government litigation.
summary
In Kansas v. Snap, Snap attempted to remove a state consumer protection lawsuit to federal court by claiming it operated under the direction of federal agencies like the DHS and FDA for public health campaigns. Legal scholar Eric Goldman highlights the severe strategic danger of this argument, noting that admitting to acting under government direction threatens to turn platforms into legal state actors. If classified as state actors, their content moderation choices would face First Amendment litigation and constitutional constraints they cannot logistically handle. Although the Kansas court rejected Snap's defense, a conflicting Florida ruling keeps the dangerous legal precedent alive on appeal.
key points
- Private internet services aggressively avoid state-actor status to prevent content moderation decisions from becoming frequent constitutional litigation targets.
- To justify moving a Kansas lawsuit to federal court, Snap argued its cooperation with DHS and FDA advertising and custom lenses constituted acting under federal direction.
- While the Kansas court rightly rejected this argument for lacking strict guidance or control, a similar Florida case accepted it, opening the door to appellate risks.
who should read it
Tech policy professionals, platform engineers, and legal practitioners interested in content moderation and constitutional law.
discussion skeptical
consensus
Commenters express bafflement at Snap's high-risk legal strategy, questioning whether it stems from incompetent legal counsel, AI-driven drafting errors, or an attempt to secure friendlier treatment from the federal administration.
pushback
A few commenters speculate whether Snap might be hinting at covert government coercion or National Security Letters, though most treat the move as a short-sighted procedural blunder.
> 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, …
Clarifies the exact legal mechanism of Snap's failed removal argument, correcting common confusion about who initiated the comparison to government entities.
Generated by an LLM from the article and thread. Check the sources before relying on it.