Ok.

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CFR-2013-title17-vol3/xml/CFR-2013-title17-vol3-sec240-10b-5.xml

My 'ifs' stand - if it's a security and if it was traded based on the information, where the definition of security and traded are key. Precedent is also key in this area.

In terms of Bitcoin securities, it's complex and messy so it's not like Ken will get pulled up on it at this point. It could also barely be traded and certainly not on a recognised exchange. However, that doesn't make it right and nor can one claim it's just clever PR. It wasn't, it was deliberately misleading information that was not corrected despite numerous discussions and requests. You may not care but others sure do and won't want it to happen again.

Outside of this, it could perhaps be deemed misleading to product purchasers but the PR wasn't targeted at them and I really don't know the legal situ there.