> Plausible deniability is a thing.

It only works if you don't hold actors responsible for consequences, only for knowingly doing wrong. For example, if Tesla cars periodically exploded when the batteries drained to zero, Tesla couldn't say 'well, we didn't know'. Nobody cares; it's your job to know. In fact, it adds to the failure that you didn't know (though knowingly selling that product might not be so hot either - not a perfect example).

When does law and regulation require knowledge? When is knowledge part of your responsibility? IMHO, there are civilians and soldiers. The mom & pop convenience store can say 'we didn't know' about some things; Whole Foods, with its resources and expertise, had better know.

Personally, when I'm doing something professionally, I never want to say 'I didn't know'. It's embarrassing. Unless it's some oddball thing that isn't even worth thinking about, it's my job to anticipate and to know. 'I didn't know' means 'I wasn't doing my job, and I don't even understand that my responsibility or what it means to be professional.'

I see your point. On the other hand, wouldn't these companies (Fluent, Opt-Intelligence and React2Media) that fabricated comments on a federal filing from real people, using their addresses, be guilty of identity theft?

Using someone else's identity to influence federal law seems like it would be a crime, but I'm not a lawyer and I don't know how that would hold up in court.

Sort of, you can still nail people for this stuff. It’s just a question of reasonable doubt and what they expect to happen.

It’s the same issue as a phone call about having someone assassinated can be a “smoking gun” even if they never say what they want to happen.