To me, their history suggests that they know more than most about how to get away with breaking both the spirit and the letter of the rules, and that they are motivated to enrich themselves without regard for what rules are broken.
I would not know which to expect, spirit or letter, in any given instance.
However, even if they were to surprise me by being perfectly meticulous about the letter of the rules from now on, I have so little trust in them that I would expect some technicality somewhere in the language of the contract.
Honestly, I wish the tech community would do a better job identifying the actual individuals who are making these decisions instead of associating them with the brand they're under at the moment, because it's not THAT many people. Like, if you look at only the 100 tech sector companies included in the $NDXT index, how many individuals hold a VP or above title there, and how difficult would it be to trace key decisions at different times made at different companies to the individuals holding those positions there plus board membership and major shareholder identities (with the caveat of known unknowns here) and make a sort of ethical index and trace that along their careers with company moves, promotions, board appointments, shareholder decisions, etc? Go a step further and link that to financial performance and I'm sure folks at quant firms are already ten steps ahead of where I'm going with this, but I care less about profiting off of this data and more about surfacing it to show that it's people and more specifically, specific individuals driving these decisions.