Unfortunately those have already been decided and are unlikely to be reversed by this case.  This case is currently about the AWA.  A previous decision using the AWA, USA vs. New York Telephone, notes it can compel companies to act, given some constraints,<p>&quot;We agree that the power of federal courts to impose duties upon third parties is not without limits; unreasonable burdens may not be imposed&quot;<p>&quot;The order provided that the Company be fully reimbursed at prevailing rates, and compliance with it required minimal effort on the part of the Company and no disruption to its operations.&quot; [1]<p>We already know law enforcement can get a warrant for access to information, and that people cannot reasonably expect privacy of information given to a 3rd party, including information on computers.  Those decisions, unfortunately, have already been made and that&#x27;s not what&#x27;s at stake here.<p>[1] <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.washingtonpost.com&#x2F;news&#x2F;volokh-conspiracy&#x2F;wp&#x2F;2016&#x2F;02&#x2F;19&#x2F;preliminary-thoughts-on-the-apple-iphone-order-in-the-san-bernardino-case-part-2-the-all-writs-act&#x2F;" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.washingtonpost.com&#x2F;news&#x2F;volokh-conspiracy&#x2F;wp&#x2F;201...</a>