Sure, obviously that looks bad for both the company and the individual in question.
But I think maxcan's point is that at no point in the process has the cheating really lead to any actual consumer harm. Which is a pretty important point.
I mostly agree with that. I was trying to explain why these videos exist in the first place--so that when the underlying rules are broken, the regulatory authority can make the rule-breaker look like a liar instead of merely someone ignorant of the rules.
Ya, I think your clarification was great but it mostly supports maxcan's point that these programs exist so that "some company's lawyers can mitigate some liability."
But I think maxcan's point is that at no point in the process has the cheating really lead to any actual consumer harm. Which is a pretty important point.