The nexus test “asks `whether there is a sufficiently close nexus between the State and the challenged action of the regulated entity so the action of the latter may be fairly treated as that of the state itself.'” Gorenc v. Salt River Project Agr. Imp. & Power Dist., 869 F.2d 503, 506 (9th Cir. 1989) (citing Jackson v. Metropolitan Edison Co., 419 U.S. 345, 351 (1974)); see also Villegas v. Gilroy Garlic Festival Ass’n, 541 F.3d 950, 955 (9th Cir. 2008) (listing factors to consider, including whether the funds of the organization come from the state and whether state officials dominate its decision-making).

Similarly, the joint action test asks “whether the state has `so far insinuated itself into a position of interdependence with [the private entity] that it must be recognized as a joint participant in the challenged activity.” Gorenc, 869 F.2d at 507 (quoting Burton v. Wilmington Parking Auth., 365 U.S. 715, 725 (1961)). “[A] bare allegation of such joint action will not overcome a motion to dismiss.” DeGrassi v. City of Glendora, 207 F.3d 636, 647 (9th Cir. 2000). The Supreme Court has explained:

[A] State normally can be held responsible for a private decision only when it has exercised coercive power or has provided such significant encouragement, either overt or covert, that the choice must in law be deemed to be that of the State. Mere approval of or acquiescence in the initiatives of a private party is not sufficient to justify holding the State responsible for those initiatives. Blum v. Yaretsky, 457 U.S. 991, 1004-05 (1982).

And this circuit requires “substantial cooperation” or that the private entity and government’s actions be “inextricably intertwined.” Brunette v. Humane Society of Ventura Cnty., 294 F.3d 1205, 1211 (9th Cir. 2002). Although “[a] conspiracy between the State and a private party to violate constitutional rights may also satisfy the joint action test,” id., the private and government actors must have actually agreed to “violate constitutional rights,” Fonda v. Gray, 707 F.2d 435, 438 (9th Cir. 1983).

In Burton the Eagle Coffee Shoppe, Inc. was “inextricably intertwined” with Delaware State because the coffee shop was within a structure owned by the Wilmington Parking Authority. The coffee shop did not even have an entrance into the parking garage. Meta/Facebook service is wholly within the structure of the Internet. The Meta/Facebook service is message common carriage of digital personal literary property. The Internet is alleged to have completed its privatization in 2016, but the US government continues to fund and to maintain substantial control over the Internet pervasively throughout the US Internet substructure as any analysis of the Internet shows. Meta almost always receives or delivers digital personal literary property through the use of a link or other device,

1. which the US government has either funded or
2. over which the US government has substantial control.

The US government and Meta are “inextricably intertwined” in the service, which Meta offers — far more than Delaware and Eagle Coffee Shoppe ever were in vending coffee.