[Figs]

Clearly, they did not. California is an all party consent state. There is no reason to build a VPN snooping system if you have consent of all parties; Snap Inc could've just straight up given them usage information and/or direct access to monitor behavioral data and read conversations in the app if everyone consented. That would have been much cheaper and simpler if everyone consents. The entire point of building this system is that Snap Inc, at a minimum, did NOT consent. Additionally, I find it very likely that the other participants in conversations on the platform who were monitored did not consent either. The user who installed the app may have consented, but that is not good enough in California. ALL parties must consent.

[0xBDB]

California is the one state where this argument might have a chance, because both Meta and Snapchat are there and maybe some of the users Meta talked into this are too. However I wouldn't put the chance anywhere near 100%:

https://www.kelleydrye.com/viewpoints/blogs/commlaw-monitor/...

Also another article I read says the CIPA has a civil statute $5,000 per violation, so if you're Meta, who cares. Not exactly the federal Computer Fraud and Abuse Act.