They may or may not have broken the law but asimov_ is trying to present settlements as proof of lawbreaking which is invalid.
because it settled the best we can do is vet the material and make our own educated decisions. they're asking for proof of an opinion. (i feel compelled to mention, some opinions hold more water than others. i think we are free to carefully speculate).
that is, just because one was not found guilty by deliberation does not mean one didn't break the law.