Does this imply that a personalized canary similar to [1] asserting that no information had been disclosed effectively makes it possible for a company to notify

Does this imply that a personalized canary similar to [1] asserting that no information had been disclosed effectively makes it possible for a company to notify a user promptly (by discontinuing the daily canary)? Or would the court rule that discontinuing the canary is communication, thus requiring the company to continue updating the personalized canary after disclosing information about that person, despite the canary now being a direct lie? [1] http://www.rsync.net/resources/notices/canary.txt http://www.rsync.net/resources/notices/canary.txt