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

https://blog.ericgoldman.org/archives/2026/09/snap-wants-to-be-a-state-actor-kansas-v-snap.htm

Comments

Terr_Sep 27, 2026, 4:17 AM
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..."

altairprimeSep 27, 2026, 9:51 AM
If they’re fine binding their future to that of corrupt government officials, then this is certainly the right administration to take that bet with. Are their financials sound?
Terr_Sep 27, 2026, 7:12 PM
What I meant was maybe they have a hidden de-facto binding and they're trying to break it rather than deepen it.

As for the other direction... I imagine that corrupt officials would prefer to have the deniability.

altairprimeSep 28, 2026, 12:21 AM
Failing to turn over proof to a judge would not particularly protect them, so that will hinge on them filing a (presumably sealed) exhibit in response to a judicial request compelling them to submit it. Seems a very poor bet to take since the judge is likely to reject any simple ‘data sharing’ or ‘crypto weakening’ order as not compelling the totality or even a majority of their business, which is ‘sharing public and private gossip between friends’ — a goal not materially hindered by compulsory wiretapping, any more than it would have been for Ma Bell or her successors. However, if the government’s order is dictating their actions to the degree that they have no freedom of action regarding this case in specific, then it could work. That seems a particularly unlikely scenario; it’s much more likely that they’re just witlessly pulling a judicial lever that an AI proposed to them, than that they are a true puppet of FedGov. We’ll see.
crempSep 27, 2026, 3:58 AM
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?

dreamcompilerSep 27, 2026, 5:34 AM
Probably they expect the Trump administration to give them friendlier treatment than Kansas would.
cassonmarsSep 27, 2026, 6:07 AM
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.
Marchant_hqSep 27, 2026, 4:35 AM
Wild move for Snap to try claiming state actor status. Definitely sets a strange precedent for corporate liability and user data.
jsroznerSep 27, 2026, 7:47 AM
Maybe Snap's lawyer's AI did not see the second order effects of the idea.
drooopySep 27, 2026, 8:17 AM
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.
Ellis_devSep 27, 2026, 3:06 AM
Guess Snap's data collection became so comprehensive that states are comparing them to a government entity. Wild times.
xethosSep 27, 2026, 4:01 AM
> 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"

MugshelfSep 27, 2026, 4:32 AM
Snap aiming for sovereign immunity? Next they'll be issuing passports. That's a truly wild legal argument.
ApocryphonSep 28, 2026, 5:45 AM
Not a nation-state actor within international relations, but an entity that acts on behalf of the government within constitutional law.
phendrenad2Sep 27, 2026, 6:07 AM
Smith-Mundt Modernization Act as an excuse for addictive algorithms, what a time to be alive.
sky2224Sep 27, 2026, 2:40 AM
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.