His actions were not in accordance with the purpose as defined.

As for the US laws that gave him the right to sell them, I am not questioning that.

However, as for his role and responsibilities as the person managing them for the purposes as defined, for which they were acquired for, well, that is a totally different ball game.

"TRUST"

He lost it, and for what?

A price in $$$$.

I know of a very old trait that goes with that type of action and it isn't "hooker", a hooker only leases her/his body.

A TRAITor sells him/her self out!

He clearly betrayed the contract he had as far as his moral duty and responsibilities are concerned.

How the laws in The USA allow for something like that, idk.

Maybe Mark Zuckerberg knows how it feels: