If the information isn't market-moving (i.e. would not cause a reasonable investor to change their prices - a judgement for the court) then you're in the clear.
If it is market-moving and Acme lets you share that information then they're violating Reg FD.
If it is market-moving and the person you talked to knows that you weren't supposed to share it, that's insider trading. When does the court say they should have known that you weren't supposed to share the information? When they know that you received a personal benefit for it (or a few other circumstances e.g. they know you agreed to keep it confidential).
This is particularly important because often these cases are about investor relations people rather than janitors. If an investor relations person tells a trader something, they can trade on it. If a trader bribes an investor relations person to tell them something, they can't trade on it. (The law aligns with common sense here IMO). Now, what if an investor relations person tells an intermediary something, and then they tell a trader that thing, and the trader trades on it? The law here is that the trader has to know that the investor relations person was bribed - because otherwise they have no reason to think they're committing a crime.