Kansas Attorney General Kobach sued Snap for deceptive and unconscionable practices, arguing the app misleads app stores and the article, Snap designed itself to be addictive. Snap removed the case to federal court, but Kobach successfully sought remand. A case can stay in federal court only if a plaintiff shows a person acted "under color of" government office.

Kobach argued Snap acted under federal direction based on work for DHS and FDA. Snap claimed it helped DHS and FDA discharge statutorily mandated missions, specifically the "Know2Protect" and "Pledge2Protect" campaigns aimed at preventing online exploitation. However, the ruling grants remand, sending the case back to state court.

The decision highlights the risks Snap faces by asserting government direction, as it opens the door for future plaintiffs to argue Snap became a state actor during content moderation. Legal experts warn Snap has provided plaintiffs with material to support claims the platform censored users on behalf of the US government, potentially creating long-term legal entanglements for a procedural win.