Not so sure about the misleading, but it could be.
Stuff like this:
We do not provide any government with direct access to emails or instant messages.
Then completely recant what you just said:
Like all providers of communications services, we are sometimes obligated to comply with lawful demands from governments to turn over content
for specific accounts, pursuant to a search warrant or court order.
Specific? As in specifically everyone?
That's in there a lot. "We comply with..." Well, WTF do you call giving information to governments? Either you do or you don't. There is no inbetween. Saying that you don't BUT... is still a bit BUT, with the inevitable "yes we do" following behind it.
It's just more BS lies.
The thing is that it is no longer possible to give anything the benefit of the doubt anymore. If there is even the slightest possible interpretation for doubt there, then it's likely true.
One only need to look at James Clapper to see that is true. "...least untruthful..." Yeah. Right. How many times did he lie or switch his story? Running out of fingers?