From the article.

“ We were busy arranging a graphic design of the box, putting easter egg jokes in the tech specs on the side, leveraging corporate partnerships, and prepping to make a run of several hundred boxes through one of Microsoft’s production printing systems. This was not only kind of expensive, but a commitment, a step that would in effect put an official stamp from Microsoft on the plan.”

I suspect that this is the reason the “PR flacks” didn’t just dismiss this as a joke gone wrong, but went beyond to insist (lie) that it was done by outsiders.

You are attempting to manipulate the stock price, likely for personal gain.

It is difficult to prove intent, especially if the press release is absurd, released on April 1st, and you’re attempting to prove it wasn’t intended as a prank.

Having said that, I’m holding a bag of SO stock because I thought they really were going to start monetizing by charging for copy-paste. /s

Why do you think the SEC has to prove intent, or even that it being a prank, even if you prove that, protects you?

> When it comes to being charged with fraud, demonstrating that the defendant lacked the intent to commit a crime (i.e. that he or she acted in good faith) is a key defense because, in order to convict the defendant, the prosecutor needs to prove that he or she had fraudulent intent.

https://www.baezlawfirm.com/two-recent-cases-highlight-impor...

> U.S. Supreme Court Rules That Securities Fraud Suits Must Be Dismissed Unless Plaintiffs Plead Fact Establishing a "Cogent and Compelling Inference" of Fraudulent Intent

https://www.jonesday.com/en/insights/2007/07/us-supreme-cour...

The SEC does more than just fraud, which is what those links speak to.

https://www.sec.gov/news/speech/2014-spch033114mjw

"We, for example, often bring cases based on negligence, while most criminal statutes require intent or at least willful blindness. Some of our statutes are also strict liability, which do not require intent, recklessness, or negligence."

And if you look at those strict liability violations, it's stuff like filing required forms and reports by financial officers, not what we were talking about.

Non executives can very much be guilty of SEC violations.

If you make a fake image of a Tesla airplane, create branding for that fake Tesla image, and post it all over the official Tesla PR accounts, without immediately or at least in the fine print, explaining this is an Apr 1 joke, Tesla, and likely you, would be legally liable.

All those downvoting this really need to read their company’s employment manual.

An employee’s actions represents their employer’s actions. Not being an executive does not make your company any less liable and/or make you as an employee less liable for your actions as an employee (there is no question whether the actions discussed in this situation were considered to be in a personal capacity, since the author clearly states they leveraged Microsoft partnerships as well as Microsoft resources to pull this off).