堪萨斯州总检察长科巴赫对Snap提起诉讼，指控其进行欺骗性和不合理的经营行为1。Snap试图以与美国国务院和食品药品监督管理局的合作为由，将案件从州法院转移至联邦法院，但该请求被法院驳回1。
Snap与美国国土安全部和食品药品监督管理局合作开展了多个教育宣传项目，包括"Know2Protect"、"Pledge2Protect"和"Blue Campaign"等活动1。然而，法院认定这些合作不符合"严格指导或控制"的法定标准，因此Snap无法被认定为在联邦官员指导下行动的州行为人1。
该案件涉及的"州行为人"法律问题影响深远。若Snap被认定为州行为人，其内容审核决定将受《宪法第一修正案》限制，可能成为诉讼焦点1。目前，堪萨斯州第十巡回法院与佛罗里达州北区法院对"州行为人"问题的法律分析存在分歧1。佛罗里达州案件已向第十一巡回法院上诉，可能进一步影响该问题的司法判例1。
A federal district court in Kansas has rejected Snap's attempt to shift a deceptive business practices lawsuit to federal jurisdiction by claiming it operates as a state actor in collaboration with U.S. government agencies.1 Kansas Attorney General Kris Kobach filed the suit alleging fraudulent and unreasonable business conduct against the social media company.1
Snap argued that its partnerships with the Department of Homeland Security and the Food and Drug Administration entitled it to removal to federal court under the state actor doctrine.1 The company pointed to collaborative educational initiatives including Know2Protect, Pledge2Protect, and the Blue Campaign as evidence of federal direction and control over its operations.1 However, the court determined that these partnerships did not meet the statutory threshold of "strict guidance or control" required to classify Snap as acting under federal authority.1
The decision carries significant implications for content moderation practices across digital platforms. If Snap were deemed a state actor, its editorial decisions would become subject to First Amendment restrictions on government speech, potentially opening its content policies to constitutional challenge.1 The legal question of when private companies qualify as state actors has generated conflicting analysis between the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals in this Kansas case and the Northern District of Florida in a separate proceeding that has been appealed to the Eleventh Circuit, signaling continued judicial uncertainty on this evolving issue.1
评论
还没有评论，欢迎留下第一条。