|
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. |
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.