Suppose there is a private business whose business model is based on the trust of its customers that it has not been served with a secret government subpoena. That is, if the customers knew (or could infer) that such a subpoena has been served, they will likely be customers no longer.
The business regularly updates its warrant canary to maintain the customers' trust.
Now, suppose the business has actually been served with a secret government subpoena, but elects to falsely maintain the warrant canary anyway. Or, rather, continuing to maintain the canary is actually part of the government order.
Should the breach of trust be unveiled by the customers and the damage be quantifiable, would the customers have a case, possibly class action?
My doubt is that the business could possibly have this defense that it was acting at the orders of the government (which cannot be liable). Will that defense shield the business from any liability?
Essentially, what the question drives at is whether there is any sense in a warrant canary in principle. If a business is never liable for lying in its warrant canary, then how can one possibly trust a warrant canary at all?