Is the historic behavior occurring on Reddit (millions of people promoting the buying and holding of GameStop stock) illegal? I've been a member of the subreddit r/wallstreetbets for some time now, it's this hilarious cult-like community that jokes about investment gains / losses and people celebrate making / losing money on the stock market. Recently it's gained millions of followers and there's a massive movement going on, you've probably seen it all over the news. Is this illegal? How far, exactly, can people go, verbally, with publishing their positions before Reddit can be sued or fined by the SEC, or the individuals posting the content cited? To clarify the verbiage I'm talking about, here are some examples of top recent posts on the subreddit that promote buying or holding GME stock: (Sorry about any explicit language) Title: Guy living in his truck update: $600 -&gt; 130k in 16 days. If I can hold you can f*cking hold 💎 💎 💎 Title: THEY ARE BLEEDING AND THEY ARE DESPERATE!!!!! Comments: Title: 6M in GameStop GME. Following through. Can’t stop, won’t stop, lift off Title: Billboard in Oklahoma City, OK! If someone can rent out a billboard for GME you can hold your shares!!! 💎 🖐!!!! (Left watermark for credit)Billboard in Oklahoma City, OK! If someone can rent out a billboard for GME you can hold your shares!!! 💎 🖐!!!! (Left watermark for credit) Content: Title: Used some of my GME tendies to buy Nintendo Switches from Gamestop, then donated them to a Children's Hospital. Comments:
Lying about a stock position can be a form of securities fraud, for example in a pump and dump scheme giving false information to the public (e.g. on Reddit) about a stock after buying it at a cheap price to &quot;pump&quot; its value to sell it later. Saying that people should buy a stock and hold it because it harms specific short sellers of that stock is probably not fraud - US law protects speech which is not false statements of fact in almost all contexts. However, specific statements about how much someone has made investing in the stock could be illegal if the statements are untrue (looking specifically at the person claiming they turned $600 into $130,000 in 16 days). It's also possible that some of the users of the subreddit are professional investment advisors and their statements would have to come with certain disclosures per SEC rules, but it's hard to tell from SEC's FAQ whether that applies to statements made anonymously.
Could a phrase &quot;Don't buy from X&quot; with indirectly implied material be considered defamatory? No. The phrase is only an order, wish, or instruction, which is different from making a direct or veiled statement of fact. Even in jurisdictions where a statement of opinion could be actionable, a stated wish of that sort cannot be construed as defamatory. anyone that reads the marketing material would indirectly have a false picture about company X. It depends on the contents of the marketing material, on which you did not elaborate. Persuading the customers on the basis of truthful representations as to why X's product is better than A's does not mean that people have a false image about X. The context and exact wording of someone's statements could amount to omitting and/or juxtaposing facts in a way that conveys some falsity, but your description gives no indications of that being the case here.
After a buyout, can a company legally continue to use old testimonials? Yes. What you describe would not suffice for a finding of false and misleading practices. For purposes of pricing the acquisition, it is most likely that company's A prestige was factored in. After all, as Kaspersky Lab, Inc. v. US Dept. of Homeland Sec., 909 F.3d 446, 461 (2018) points out, &quot;reputation is an asset that companies cultivate, manage, and monetize&quot;. As company A has --or could have-- monetized its reputation via the acquisition price, it would be inconsistent to preclude company B from using an asset for which it paid.
Assuming the USA, since that's where they appear to be located. Spreading misinformation is not illegal- it is protected by the first amendment. There are exceptions but I can't see how any would apply here. You haven't mentioned any that you think apply. If some of the videos on the site guaranteed results or made medical claims, maybe that could be considered false advertising. However, I see no evidence of this. Users are advertised that paying for access to a bunch of hocum videos will get them access to a bunch of snake oil and this appears to be the case.
That's an old idea that has been tried several times before (such as the first, being Unvarnished: Website Lets You Review People (And Trash Them) | HuffPost, which no longer exists); and one of the latest incarnations is Peeple (mobile application - Wikipedia). There are lots of legal liabilities, including defamation and harassment/stalking, even with the Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act | Electronic Frontier Foundation which (mostly) protects the website owner from others' speech posted on the site (your mileage may vary due to jurisdiction). The only way such a site would survive is to do what Peeple and other sites have done: greatly limit the speech allowed, such as limiting to only positive reviews, giving the subject complete control over what does appear on their profile, only allowing "opt-in" profiles, verify identities, etc. You would have to implement full GDPR compliance; but various lawsuits will either shut you down before you get far enough to launch or soon after and force you to greatly limit the scope of the site. Most lawyers would advise you to find something else to do with your time and money.
Note that what is being bought or sold here is actually information about the exploit. Attempting to criminally penalize the transmission of information in the US often runs into First Amendment issues. If a person has good reason to know that information is going to be used to commit a crime, or is likely to be so used, and there is no plausible legitimate use for the information, that person might be charged with complicity or conspiracy for distributing the information. But where there are legitimate uses, that is much less likely. Here the information could be used to defend against the exploit, or to identify and remove software subject to the exploit, or for research into such exploits generally. There may be other legit uses as well. Some years ago the Federal government attempted to prosecute a person for exporting a book describing how to create an encryption program. The courts eventually ruled that this was protected speech. I suspect a similar ruling would be made in the sort of case described in the question, but the details would matter.
I can't see anything to say this is a state-wide ban. Do they have to give an opportunity to return unused fireworks for a refund? The ban imposed by Portland Fire and Rescue appears to relate to the use, not possession, of fireworks so I assume that the stores' / State's regular refund policies would apply. Due to unusually hot temperatures and dry conditions, PF&amp;R is announcing an immediate ban on the use of all legal and illegal fireworks...
I can see at least two defenses. Game of Skill Defense. Already mentioned in the comments. Entertainment Defense. One could claim the game itself is a form of entertainment and, therefore, all funds spent while playing the game are for entertainment purposes only vis-a-vis the game itself. And not any alleged gambling within the game. Consider the fact that the gambling rewards, after all, (i.e., mining stuff) are limited to being used inside the game and have zero utility outside the game. Ergo, all payments are strictly for entertainment purposes.