Snap Wants to be a State Actor??–Kansas v. Snap

Kansas Attorney General Kobach sued Snap alleging deceptive and unconscionable practices, arguing Snap misleads app stores about mature ratings and intentionally designs its product to be addictive. Snap removed the case to federal court claiming it acted “under” federal officers because of paid work for DHS and FDA - for example, creating educational campaigns and custom interactive lenses for Know2Protect, Pledge2Protect, Blue Campaign, and FDA efforts like “The Real Cost” and “Next Legends,” with government direction on where and how ads should run and targeting to teenage users. If private platforms are treated as state actors, their content-moderation choices would trigger constitutional restraints and massive new litigation exposure, so platforms have long sought to avoid that characterization.

The federal court in Kansas rejected Snap’s federal-officer removal defense, finding the DHS/FDA work amounted largely to ordinary advertiser-publisher transactions and limited projects without the “strict guidance or control” required to show acting under a federal officer. The court distinguished a contrary Florida decision now on appeal to the Eleventh Circuit, but the split makes future rulings unpredictable. By asserting government-directed conduct, Snap has nevertheless handed plaintiffs ammunition to allege state-action censorship, creating a significant strategic and legal risk even though the Kansas court denied removal.