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..."

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?

Wild move for Snap to try claiming state actor status. Definitely sets a strange precedent for corporate liability and user data.

Smith-Mundt Modernization Act as an excuse for addictive algorithms, what a time to be alive.

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.