Hold on. Let's not forget where this started. They did try to tell their customers - via email. Your objection is that the form of notice they used was inadequate.
That's a fair objection, but choosing an inadequate form of notice, by itself, isn't dishonesty. Knowingly choosing inadequate notice would be the problem. To me it seems equally (if not more) plausible that someone, mistakenly, didn't realize that email notice wasn't good enough.
I'll also add that it isn't clear that email notice was inadequate. Are there cases of people outside the 71 who were unhappy learning about the change from another channel (like this one)?
That's a fair objection, but choosing an inadequate form of notice, by itself, isn't dishonesty. Knowingly choosing inadequate notice would be the problem. To me it seems equally (if not more) plausible that someone, mistakenly, didn't realize that email notice wasn't good enough.
I'll also add that it isn't clear that email notice was inadequate. Are there cases of people outside the 71 who were unhappy learning about the change from another channel (like this one)?