Nothing unless it gets bad press. Why do you think they care about "egregious" behavior?
Quote From: What We Look For In Founders - Paul Graham - October 2010
[...]
Naughtiness
Though the most successful founders are usually good people, they
tend to have a piratical gleam in their eye. They're not Goody
Two-Shoes type good. Morally, they care about getting the big questions
right, but not about observing proprieties. That's why I'd use the word
naughty rather than evil. They delight in breaking rules, but not rules
that matter. This quality may be redundant though; it may be implied by
imagination. [...]
I don't think that's fair. I strongly doubt PG considers spamming, or (falsely) naming & shaming customers, as "naughtiness". That's something very different.
"The culture of any organisation is shaped by the worst behaviour the leader is prepared to tolerate".
By stating that rules breaking is desirable, but not stating clearly where the lines are, companies are not given clear enough guidance to avoid scumbag behaviour.
This is a fair point. It's just that in this particular instance, I feel that their actions crossed into the "evil" category -- they dig up PPI on one of their users and plaster it on the site, slandering her in the process. This is different than "creatively" interpreting some piece of regulation or something of the sort. I take your point, though.
Nothing unless it gets bad press. Why do you think they care about "egregious" behavior?
Quote From: What We Look For In Founders - Paul Graham - October 2010