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..."