I don't think it's as simple as that. The disclosure, as I recall, was along the lines of "the stock
might be worthless", while not laying out any scenario where it was not, to give people a chance to estimate the probability.
It seemed to me like they were wilfully encouraging people to overestimate the value of the stock by a large amount, even while saying it was risky. If you ask for volunteers to jump out of a plane without a parachute, and disclose that it might be hazardous to your health, and some might even not survive, well, the implication that you might survive it is not technically wrong. There is historical precedent. But is it honest if people are going to interpret it as a substantial chance?