So Tiversa breached systems to get data from them to show the system owner that they needed their services?
But if Tiversa did breach those systems, then they did need Tiversa's services didn't they?
Yet the linked-to article says "If Wallace is telling the truth, the FTC aggressively prosecuted a company based on bogus evidence."
The only way I can see the evidence being bogus is if Wallace exploited a position of trust granted to him by the target company, and not even necessarily then. Whatever the truth is, the report is not self-consistent. Apparently, rational analysis and critical thinking are not employed at CNN - but we suspected that, anyway.