My guess would be the US Govt would argue that it is not "benefitting" from the cooperation:
"Involuntary servitude or Involuntary slavery is a United States legal and constitutional term for a person laboring against that person's will to benefit another, under some form of coercion other than the worker's financial needs." [1]
Or..that Apple is not a person.
Or..that Apple is not being coerced.
The government would most certainly be benefiting from such cooperation. I would imagine that the data so provided would save the government from doing much investigation. This is a clear demonstrable benefit. If the data is not acquirable by other means, then the cost of acquisition is infinite and the benefit is as well. Of course, this depends on the definition benefit much like Nixon's definition of legality.
>under some form of coercion other than the worker's financial needs.
I like the way that financial needs is considered coercion, but is just exempted. I wonder what the basis for the exemption is. How can it be justified compared to other forms of coercion (or the use of financial coercion in other areas) without resorting to special pleading?
My guess would be the US Govt would argue that it is not "benefitting" from the cooperation:
"Involuntary servitude or Involuntary slavery is a United States legal and constitutional term for a person laboring against that person's will to benefit another, under some form of coercion other than the worker's financial needs." [1]
Or..that Apple is not a person. Or..that Apple is not being coerced.
Who knows :/
1. Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Involuntary_servitude