[cratermoon]

In simple terms, investors are suing because even though they might have made a boatload of cash from their investments in Meta, they ended up with a net loss overall because what Meta did to pump up the stock value ended up destroying the value of a lot of other things the investors had in their portfolios.

[bombcar]

It seems to me that if you owned the companies outright something like preventing one company from harming the value of the other could easily be illegal collusion and monopolizing.

I doubt they’ll win this one but if they do it would be hilariously amusing.

[math_dandy]

Reading the article, it sounds more like someone really wants to get an ESG precedent established.

[WaitWaitWha]

That is not what I gathered, but I invest in dirt so who knows.

What I gathered, is that the facebook decisions impacted non-facebook stocks, facebook not only should have known but also are responsible as fiduciary to the stock holders.

In short, besides you, I bought your competitor, you should have known I bought them, your actions now crushed your competitor, I lost a boatload on them, you are responsible.

> The complaint alleges that the Meta directors failed to consider that shareholders with diversified portfolios may be subject to net losses from Meta’s pursuit of a business model that maximizes advertising revenue without regard to the harms it inflicts on the rest of their portfolios. In particular, the complaint identifies press reports establishing that the company knew that its conduct was leading to mental health issues for millions of users and increasingly negative political rhetoric, while facilitating ethnic cleansing, drug cartels, modern slavery, and vaccine disinformation. These activities pose risks to political stability, public health, and rule of law, threatening the intrinsic value of the global economy and thus the value of diversified portfolios. (As diversified portfolios represent a slice of the economy, reducing the value of the global economy inevitably reduces portfolio value.

[cratermoon]

> the facebook decisions impacted non-facebook stocks, facebook not only should have known but also are responsible as fiduciary to the stock holders.

That's sort of the same as what I said. The claim is that Meta did things to make money that caused investors to lose money in other stocks & investments, and that Meta is responsible for those losses.

[cherioo]

Wow, this seems bananas. The loss in value isn’t even other investment, but rather “mental health issues for millions of users and increasingly negative political rhetoric, while facilitating ethnic cleansing, drug cartels, modern slavery, and vaccine disinformation”

[TheGeminon]

I think they are intentionally being vague to encompass as much as possible in their theoretical “diversified portfolio”.

I think their goal is to prove that Meta’s negative impact was so broad that most investors had some sort of negative impact outside of their Meta holdings.

[threeseed]

Meta is really just a microcosm for the entire internet.

So if Meta is liable then surely every company involved in the foundation of the internet is as well e.g. Google, Microsoft, Cloudflare, ISPs etc.