I don't understand the thought process behind such legal-ese talk. Do they think we are dumb and can't see through it? Putting this sort of stuff up is just saying "we don't care about you in reality but here is a post saying we do".
The post sounds like it was actually written by either legal or marketing instead
> some of these security alerts...were likely triggered in error
one can conclude that they do not know that any of the alerts were triggered in error (else he would have said as much). Some of the VP's statements were likely triggered by the legal department, though I don't know that any actually were. It doesn't exactly shed light on anything.
> some of these security alerts...were likely triggered in error
Our VP made no statement about the totality. Draw what conclusions you may from the equivocal register of this public-relations statement, but he is relegating his statement to those alerts which, by his own words, he cannot say to a certainty whether or not they were triggered in error. I presume that this statement is calculated to exclude all those alerts that they can know were legitimate. If you want to expand the scope of the statement, then the only implication would be that they cannot discern the legitimate from the illegitimate alerts.
The only purpose of my comment was to draw attention to the apparent equivocation, that is, the art of misleading without lying. If they can't tell right from wrong (alerts), so much the more damning.
But come on, Lastpass has been on a downwards slope for a very long time. They can't even make their main product as good as Bitwarden which is free.