No, because you are commenting on something that was already public knowledge. There's nothing to suggest that the innards of the phone were discoverable by the public until Gizmodo threw up ~20 pictures of them.
And thus, making money out of a legal problem they created for their own employee.
So we can add fraud to the potential charges, which requires a material misrepresentation of fact (his potential personal criminal liability), made with scienter (a reckless disregard for the truth), justifiably relied upon (by an employee listening to the company's self-identified legal representative, Gaby Derbyshire, who is not qualified to practice law in the US), and which has resulted in an injury (the confiscation of all his electronic stuff).
If I ever end up in court I want you there too. On the other side.
