Here are some examples where a first-order trust issue (failure to maintain an expected state) is compounded by a second-order trust issue (failure to notify affected parties).
Identity TheftMany examples have emerged recently in which personal data has been abused. One of the most notorious was ChoicePoint.
Some have argued that ChoicePoint cannot be accused of betraying the trust of the data subjects, because they had no direct contract or business relationship with these subjects in the first place. However, there seems to be a strong argument for transitive betrayal.
The secondary issue here is that of notification. Should data subjects be notified when their identity has been compromised or stolen? ChoicePoint received a lot of criticism about their notification policy as well.
Split Capital InvestmentChris Flitwick, who was at the centre of the split capital scam, has argued that the split caps were originally low risk, and that it was the investment practices of the fund managers that turned them into high risk. (I have described this elsewhere as an example of Bezzle.)
Such a radical change in investment practices itself might be regarded as a breach of trust, since it compromised the implicit proposition which many investors thought they had accepted. Some investors have argued that the investment companies have a duty of trust to maintain the original risk profile and bear the difference.
But in any case, if events and changing management practices turn a low risk into a high risk, surely there is a duty of trust to notify all stakeholders that the risk profile has changed and give them an opportuity to reconsider their investment/involvement.