I wonder why it's permitted by Federal law for a corporate entity to write legal notices in such a way that is limited to, in most cases, leading the user to be

I wonder why it's permitted by Federal law for a corporate entity to write legal notices in such a way that is limited to, in most cases, leading the user to believe something is being asserted via highly contrived prolixity when in fact the assertion is entirely void of any substance outside of the tacit acknowledgement from the entity issuing the notice that there will be no breach of notoriously vague Federal law unless the lawyers working for the entity, who (in so many words) actually authored the notice in the first place, see a loophole through which they believe they can exonerate their client without needlessly causing their client's PR firm to work overtime especially in cases where the aforementioned lack of substance is purposefully placed over the purpose of the notice, which may be defined, but is not definitively limited to meaning, the entity will more or less use the data of the notified person, who may or may not be misled by traditionally sound intuition as well as the insubstantial notice being described to believe that his or her actions upon the entity's platform are private, as currency, thus leveraging the intimate knowledge of the disoriented, albeit notified, person to manipulate thoughts, desires, and actions (not to mention internal and external perception in general) towards any and all ends the entity dictates based on fiduciary goals and its incommensurable and entropic drive to further consolidate control of a market the entity continues to cultivate and grow beyond all reasonable proportion.