Popular in Law

Human Rights Law

Human Rights and Corruption: Problems and Potential of Individualising a Systemic Problem

Max Planck Institute Anne Peters

Law

A statistical approach to law school citation rankings

University of Virginia Joshua Fischman

Constitutional Law

What is constitutional ideology?

University of Oxford Nick Barber

Civil Procedure Law

Politics, Identity, and Class Certification on the U.S. Courts of Appeals

University of Pennsylvania Sean Farhang

Law

Diversity and Social Mobility in the UK legal profession

Law Society I. Stephanie Boyce

Internet Law

The Law of AI for Good

University of San Diego Orly Lobel

Human Rights Law

Transforming Restorative Justice for Transitional Settings

University of Nottingham Kerry Clamp

Finfluencers and the Reasonable Retail Investor

View more insights in Professional - Law - Corporate Law

View more figures from Santa Clara University

View the page of Sue Guan

Read the Study

Next in Corporate Law

Banking Law and Climate Change: Key Legal Issues

Alessandro Gullo, Ender Emre, Mario Tamez | International Monetary Fund

Back to the future: the identification of market power in the Big Data Sector

Andrea Lista | University of Southampton

Sua Guan highlights how much recent debate has focused on finfluencer hazards. Finfluencers influence investment decisions greatly on social media.

Image courtesy of interviewee. January 22, 2024

Log-in or Sign-up to Faculti
Currently viewing this subject insight as a guest. You have insight(s) remaining for this month. Login to view 8000+ figures on the platform.

Generating Workspace...

Export as PDF

This video video discusses the influence of social media and retail investors on stock market dynamics, highlighting how influencers can significantly impact stock prices through their online presence, even without explicit misinformation. It cites a securities fraud case involving Ryan Cohen, the founder of chewy.com and current CEO of GameStop, which raises questions about the responsibility and accountability of influencers in this evolving market environment.

The paper argues that existing securities laws, primarily focused on clear deceit and manipulation, struggle to address the "gray area" of influencer accountability, often leaving retail investors vulnerable. This video video notes a recent ruling in a case involving Bed Bath & Beyond, suggesting that courts are beginning to assess the impact of influencer behavior on the reasonable retail investor's perception, even when communications lack concrete information.

Cohen's social media actions, particularly a tweet with an emoji that his followers interpreted as a positive indication about stock performance, led to significant trading activity and profit from his stock sales. The court ruled against Cohen’s dismissal motion, indicating that his tweet could be seen as misleading due to the context in which it was shared, thus opening pathways for future securities litigation against influencers.

The document posits that a focus on the reasonable retail investor could facilitate better protection against harmful influencer activities in the stock market, encouraging more informed investor participation and promoting accountability among influencers in their communications. Overall, it underscores the potential for adapting existing securities regulations to address the unique challenges posed by the influence of social media on trading.

Language:

Export as PDF

X-TIMESTAMP-MAP:LOCAL=00:00:00.000,MPEGTS=900000

00:00.000 --> 00:01.485
These people are these entities

00:01.635 --> 00:04.845
that have outsized influence on investor decisions

00:04.845 --> 00:06.205
through social media.

00:06.905 --> 00:10.205
And this is really because of their reach, the reach

00:10.205 --> 00:12.725
of influencers, the reach of the retail investors

00:12.795 --> 00:13.885
that they engage with.

00:14.885 --> 00:17.725
Combined are really shifting today's stock market

00:17.875 --> 00:19.525
information ecosystem.

00:20.825 --> 00:23.365
And they're doing this because influencer

00:23.505 --> 00:26.805
and retail trading increasingly generate stock price

00:27.165 --> 00:28.645
movements that reflect their cultural

00:28.645 --> 00:29.725
values and preferences.

00:30.435 --> 00:32.685
Information is increasingly disseminated

00:32.685 --> 00:35.885
through social media and almost anybody can become an

00:35.885 --> 00:39.725
information broker or a influencer in today's stock markets.

00:40.785 --> 00:42.485
And a further consequence is

00:42.485 --> 00:46.445
that influencer's social media activity can generate stock

00:46.445 --> 00:49.605
price movements through followers trading activity,

00:49.795 --> 00:53.205
even when that influencer has not made any statements

00:53.215 --> 00:56.965
containing concrete information directly related

00:57.185 --> 01:00.085
to the stock price or the underlying companies

01:00.345 --> 01:02.005
or issuers prospects.

01:02.885 --> 01:04.785
So this paper really arose out

01:04.785 --> 01:07.745
of a ruling in a securities fraud case brought against the

01:08.105 --> 01:10.905
activist investor Ryan Cohen, who is also the founder

01:10.925 --> 01:15.785
of chewy.com and the chairperson in current CEO of GameStop.

01:16.125 --> 01:19.105
And he is a classic influencer.

01:19.645 --> 01:23.185
And this study is trying to investigate the scope

01:23.365 --> 01:27.585
of the current securities laws as applied to the sort

01:27.585 --> 01:30.705
of gray area that has arisen as a result of influencer

01:31.265 --> 01:32.385
activity in the stock markets.

01:33.265 --> 01:37.265
Existing securities laws primarily target lies.

01:37.535 --> 01:40.225
They're designed to target clear deceit

01:40.225 --> 01:42.105
or manipulative intent.

01:42.805 --> 01:46.225
And the two main provisions of the securities laws

01:46.415 --> 01:48.265
that do this are section nine A

01:48.285 --> 01:49.865
and section 10 B, along

01:49.865 --> 01:52.585
with section 10 Bs accompanying rule 10 B five

01:53.405 --> 01:56.705
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

01:57.415 --> 02:00.945
Section nine A targets manipulation

02:01.485 --> 02:04.945
and effectively its reach hinges on the

02:04.945 --> 02:06.625
manipulator elicit purpose.

02:07.655 --> 02:11.705
Rule 10 B five has largely been used to police

02:12.525 --> 02:14.265
deceit and misrepresentation.

02:14.525 --> 02:17.425
And really what that means in practice is

02:17.935 --> 02:19.665
that it looks for fraud.

02:20.605 --> 02:23.595
Again, their focus is on lies.

02:24.695 --> 02:27.915
And this has created something of a gray area with respect

02:27.915 --> 02:30.075
to influencer accountability

02:30.585 --> 02:34.275
because less clear is the application of securities laws

02:34.375 --> 02:37.755
to situations where a FI influencer does not share false

02:37.785 --> 02:39.275
information or

02:39.275 --> 02:43.715
where a influencer arguably doesn't share any concrete information at all.

02:44.095 --> 02:46.595
But nevertheless, stock prices are reacting

02:46.595 --> 02:49.555
to something about the influencers behavior

02:50.845 --> 02:54.505
and the growing ubiquity of influencing has created this

02:55.215 --> 02:58.505
concern that influencers can influence their followers

02:58.805 --> 03:01.085
And profit off their followers trading

03:01.655 --> 03:06.205
while essentially steering clear of the securities laws.

03:07.065 --> 03:10.685
And retail investors are disproportionately harmed

03:10.865 --> 03:13.165
by this kind of gray area activity.

03:13.585 --> 03:17.325
And re Bed Bath and Beyond has had a recent ruling on a

03:17.405 --> 03:20.045
motion to dismiss, which opens a potential path

03:20.185 --> 03:22.965
for accountability in precisely these gray area

03:23.065 --> 03:24.645
or borderline situations.

03:25.865 --> 03:29.205
And that's the fundamental argument of this study

03:30.265 --> 03:33.165
in Reed Bath and Beyond is the latest NA series of cases

03:33.265 --> 03:36.725
and sort of regulatory actions that adjudicate the scope

03:36.785 --> 03:40.205
of wrongdoing in sort of today's modern trading context.

03:41.275 --> 03:43.245
However, previous examples

03:43.265 --> 03:47.205
of influencer litigation primarily involve traditional pump

03:47.225 --> 03:48.285
and dump schemes.

03:48.905 --> 03:50.165
In a traditional pump

03:50.165 --> 03:52.685
and dump scheme, a manipulator purchases stocks

03:53.305 --> 03:54.645
at a low price

03:55.075 --> 03:58.245
that manipulator shares false information about

03:58.245 --> 03:59.605
that stock or about the company.

04:00.075 --> 04:02.165
This prompts others to buy the stock.

04:02.465 --> 04:03.845
The price gets inflated

04:04.265 --> 04:06.165
and then the manipulators will,

04:06.175 --> 04:08.645
shell sell their shares at a profit.

04:10.505 --> 04:12.845
And the securities laws are very well equipped

04:12.845 --> 04:14.765
to handle these traditional pump

04:14.765 --> 04:16.005
and dump schemes regardless

04:16.105 --> 04:18.285
of the medium on which they're perpetrated.

04:18.285 --> 04:20.125
Whether you're calling somebody to manipulate

04:20.585 --> 04:23.045
or whether you're doing it on Reddit, for example.

04:23.995 --> 04:28.725
However, this recent district court ruling in, in Reed Bath

04:28.725 --> 04:30.165
and beyond indicates

04:30.165 --> 04:33.045
that the securities laws may also be flexible enough

04:33.065 --> 04:36.245
to handle wrongdoing in the influencer gray area,

04:36.535 --> 04:39.605
where again, statements may not be factually untrue,

04:40.185 --> 04:42.315
but you have situations

04:42.325 --> 04:44.675
where those statements can be interpreted

04:45.255 --> 04:48.475
as being misleading enough depending on the context

04:48.575 --> 04:50.115
and the particular beliefs held

04:50.295 --> 04:53.475
by the influencers social media followers.

04:55.045 --> 04:57.065
And this brings us to Ryan Cohen

04:57.065 --> 04:59.825
and specifically Enri Bed Bath and Beyond.

04:59.825 --> 05:03.385
So Ryan Cohen is the founder of chewy.com,

05:03.485 --> 05:06.425
the current chair of GameStop's board and it's CEO.

05:06.845 --> 05:08.905
He is this powerful influencer.

05:09.045 --> 05:11.465
He is known to his followers as Papa Cohen.

05:11.655 --> 05:13.625
He's been referred to as a meme stock king.

05:13.735 --> 05:16.705
He's got nearly 400,000 followers, all

05:16.705 --> 05:19.825
of whom pay close attention to his social media activity.

05:20.295 --> 05:21.425
They try to sort

05:21.425 --> 05:24.425
of divine hidden information on future corporate decisions

05:24.425 --> 05:27.665
or stock price movements simply based on his social

05:27.665 --> 05:28.745
media activity.

05:30.245 --> 05:31.945
And as with other influencers,

05:32.095 --> 05:35.185
even when Cohen's social media activity contains no

05:35.185 --> 05:38.025
information directly related to the underlying issuer

05:38.025 --> 05:42.065
or company, stock prices move in response nevertheless.

05:43.045 --> 05:47.105
So on August 12th, 2022, in response

05:47.125 --> 05:50.425
to A-C-N-V-C story stating that Bed Bath

05:50.425 --> 05:53.745
and Beyond faced these grim financial prospects,

05:54.515 --> 05:56.105
which included a picture of a woman

05:56.105 --> 05:58.805
with a shopping cart at the at Bed, bed Bath

05:58.805 --> 06:02.565
and beyond, Ryan Cohen tweeted the following,

06:03.185 --> 06:06.045
at least her cart is full, followed

06:06.145 --> 06:08.205
by a smiley face moon emoji.

06:09.195 --> 06:10.845
Four days later on August 16th,

06:11.795 --> 06:14.205
Ryan Cohen filed a Schedule 13 D

06:14.205 --> 06:17.485
with the SEC stating his current holdings in Bed Bath

06:17.485 --> 06:20.525
and beyond, which included roughly a 10%,

06:20.525 --> 06:22.085
11% stake in the company.

06:22.665 --> 06:25.365
And these are essentially the same positions Cohen had

06:25.565 --> 06:28.045
previously disclosed in March of 2022,

06:28.045 --> 06:29.165
about five months prior.

06:29.485 --> 06:32.805
Nevertheless, upon learning of Cohen's filing,

06:33.345 --> 06:34.885
retail investors purchased

06:34.885 --> 06:38.485
around $73 million in Bed Bath and Beyond stock.

06:39.065 --> 06:41.405
The share price jumped nearly 70%

06:41.995 --> 06:44.405
that same day Ryan Cohen started selling

06:44.545 --> 06:47.645
and he sold his entire stake in Bed Bath and Beyond,

06:47.905 --> 06:51.125
and Ryan Cohen made profits of around $68 million.

06:52.185 --> 06:55.675
Ryan Cohen then disclosed the sale, the price of Bed Bath

06:55.675 --> 06:56.755
and Beyond plummeted.

06:57.135 --> 07:00.155
And Cohen, along with others, was sued by plaintiffs

07:00.495 --> 07:02.675
for alleged securities fraud.

07:03.905 --> 07:06.765
And in the lawsuit at Issue was the meaning

07:06.865 --> 07:11.085
of his August 12th tweet with his smiley face moon emoji.

07:12.915 --> 07:15.095
And Cohen filed a motion to dismiss.

07:15.235 --> 07:16.975
He argued that his tweet was neither

07:17.295 --> 07:18.495
material nor misleading.

07:19.455 --> 07:21.275
The court rejected his argument.

07:21.775 --> 07:24.995
The court explained that you have these online community

07:25.105 --> 07:28.315
communities who understand this smiley moon emoji

07:28.455 --> 07:30.475
to mean things like to the moon

07:30.535 --> 07:32.555
or take it to the moon, right,

07:32.555 --> 07:34.555
that the court thought it was plausible

07:34.555 --> 07:36.915
that Cohen was telling his hundreds of thousands

07:36.915 --> 07:39.315
of followers that the stock was going up

07:39.495 --> 07:42.435
and that they should buy the stock, right?

07:42.435 --> 07:45.275
That their, that Cohen's followers perceived

07:46.315 --> 07:49.695
the smiley face moon emoji as a ri rallying cry

07:49.715 --> 07:50.815
to buy the stock,

07:51.285 --> 07:54.615
even though Cohen had already soured on Bed Bath and Beyond.

07:55.695 --> 07:56.995
And what's really happening,

07:57.375 --> 07:59.115
and the paper makes the argument

07:59.425 --> 08:01.875
that the court is really assessing these questions

08:01.875 --> 08:05.115
of materiality in today's context of social media

08:05.135 --> 08:09.275
and influencing the court considered the meme,

08:09.275 --> 08:12.075
stock subculture, which associated according

08:12.075 --> 08:14.675
to the court a moon emoji with the implication

08:14.675 --> 08:15.755
that a stock will rise.

08:16.735 --> 08:19.875
And the court considered co Cohen's particular relationship

08:19.875 --> 08:22.435
with his followers, including his identity

08:22.575 --> 08:24.195
as a powerful influencer.

08:24.655 --> 08:27.155
The court noted for example, that investors

08:28.015 --> 08:29.555
may have reasonably seen Cohen

08:29.555 --> 08:31.915
as this insider who's sympathetic to them

08:32.585 --> 08:36.235
that they had this specific relationship with Ryan Cohen

08:36.235 --> 08:39.195
or viewed themselves as having this specific relationship

08:39.195 --> 08:40.795
with Ryan Cohen.

08:42.175 --> 08:45.755
And ultimately the court relies significantly on this

08:45.755 --> 08:48.835
relationship between Ryan Cohen, this influencer

08:49.295 --> 08:50.315
and his followers,

08:50.975 --> 08:53.515
and focused on how his followers would interpret

08:54.265 --> 08:56.495
Cohen's tweet given those followers

08:57.135 --> 08:58.775
specific community beliefs.

08:59.715 --> 09:03.095
And more interestingly, the court did so for a communication

09:03.095 --> 09:05.735
that otherwise could be argued to contain no

09:06.415 --> 09:07.975
concrete information at all.

09:08.965 --> 09:12.255
This is precisely the kind of influencer communication

09:12.255 --> 09:15.495
that falls within the gray area under the securities laws

09:16.005 --> 09:18.615
that, we previously discussed.

09:19.535 --> 09:21.115
And this then opens this path

09:21.295 --> 09:23.195
for the reasonable retail investor

09:23.215 --> 09:26.195
to take primacy in future securities litigation

09:26.195 --> 09:27.395
against influencers.

09:27.815 --> 09:29.755
So the reasonable investor

09:31.115 --> 09:35.125
generically has a long history in securities laws central

09:35.225 --> 09:37.805
to a securities fraud action is the requirement

09:38.105 --> 09:39.445
of materiality.

09:40.145 --> 09:43.245
And the test for materiality involves determining whether

09:43.245 --> 09:46.645
there is a substantial likelihood that the disclosure

09:46.705 --> 09:51.045
of the omitted fact would have been viewed by the reasonable

09:51.605 --> 09:55.005
investor as having significantly altered the total mix

09:55.105 --> 09:56.765
of information made available.

09:58.145 --> 10:01.245
But making this determination has been notoriously thorny

10:01.245 --> 10:03.365
for courts not least

10:03.365 --> 10:05.725
because this reasonable investor figure

10:06.385 --> 10:08.925
has really alluded clear judicial

10:09.065 --> 10:11.445
or regulatory definition.

10:12.315 --> 10:15.885
However, there is existing guidance that does gesture

10:16.185 --> 10:20.005
to a reasonable rational investor, a very rational investor,

10:20.425 --> 10:23.325
one who is relatively financially sophisticated, maybe not

10:23.505 --> 10:25.485
to the level of an investment professional,

10:25.945 --> 10:28.685
but one who understands market concepts certainly

10:28.985 --> 10:30.405
and conducts financial

10:30.405 --> 10:32.845
and mathematical research on their own.

10:33.775 --> 10:37.275
And the standard has been criticized as creating this sort

10:37.275 --> 10:40.635
of mythical aspirational figure that is unrealistic.

10:42.075 --> 10:45.655
And similarly in dominant stock market microstructure

10:45.655 --> 10:47.935
theory, retail investors are thought of

10:47.935 --> 10:51.775
as these quote uninformed traders who act idiosyncratically

10:51.795 --> 10:54.215
and trade for reasons unrelated to information

10:54.215 --> 10:57.455
regarding the fundamental value of any given stock.

10:58.445 --> 11:00.225
In other words, traditional legal

11:00.365 --> 11:03.665
and economic theory has given little sort of thought

11:03.665 --> 11:06.665
to the retail investors' role in capital markets.

11:08.235 --> 11:09.775
But I've argued

11:09.805 --> 11:12.335
that retail investors are only growing in power

11:12.355 --> 11:15.815
and influence, and this effect is substantially amplified

11:15.835 --> 11:18.975
by the growth of influencing and combined.

11:18.975 --> 11:22.255
Their impact really is very wide ranging from shifting the

11:22.255 --> 11:24.575
kinds of information reflected in stock prices

11:25.395 --> 11:28.935
to driving corporate reactions and capital flow.

11:30.035 --> 11:31.975
And so perhaps it's unsurprising

11:31.975 --> 11:35.095
that a court would assess materiality from the perspective

11:35.595 --> 11:38.815
of a reasonable retail investor specifically.

11:39.195 --> 11:41.015
And this is precisely

11:41.445 --> 11:45.095
what the court did in in Reed Bath and beyond.

11:45.995 --> 11:49.335
The court pointed to quote the meme, stock subculture.

11:49.875 --> 11:52.375
The court considered Cohen specific relationship

11:52.405 --> 11:53.520
with his followers.

11:54.665 --> 11:56.725
In other words, the court did not consider

11:56.795 --> 11:58.285
Cohen's tweet in a vacuum.

11:59.145 --> 12:01.365
The court considered the total mix of information

12:01.385 --> 12:04.365
as would be salient to a retail investor

12:04.545 --> 12:07.565
and even more specifically to a meme investor

12:09.515 --> 12:13.875
activity as a result that might previously have been thought

12:13.875 --> 12:16.275
to occur near, but not directly in violation

12:16.275 --> 12:19.275
of securities laws such as tweeting emojis,

12:19.275 --> 12:20.595
purportedly meant as a joke,

12:20.855 --> 12:23.595
but which lead to follower activity, even when

12:23.595 --> 12:26.595
that effect is arguably unintentional, might be deemed

12:27.315 --> 12:28.995
material when viewed through the lens

12:29.055 --> 12:32.675
of a reasonable retail investor specifically.

12:34.325 --> 12:37.465
And ultimately, viewing materiality from this perspective

12:37.605 --> 12:39.185
of a reasonable retail investor

12:39.695 --> 12:42.665
potentially opens this path forward for the millions

12:42.665 --> 12:44.745
of retail investors who have been

12:44.745 --> 12:46.905
or might be harmed by influencer activity

12:47.055 --> 12:50.745
that falls into this gray area of the securities laws.

12:51.655 --> 12:54.785
This places primacy on retail investors', interpretation

12:54.885 --> 12:56.905
of influencer's, social media activity.

12:57.605 --> 13:01.865
And in doing so, this narrows a gap in securities oversight.

13:02.445 --> 13:03.825
And I argue that it demonstrates

13:03.825 --> 13:06.945
that existing securities laws can be flexible enough

13:07.205 --> 13:09.425
to deter and punish a significant portion

13:09.525 --> 13:12.065
of problematic influencer behavior.

13:12.565 --> 13:14.985
The ruling in in Reed Bath and Beyond.

13:14.985 --> 13:18.625
While preliminary has opened a potential path forward

13:18.845 --> 13:21.665
for courts to consider the reasonable retail investor,

13:21.755 --> 13:25.585
especially when considering influencer activity.

13:27.135 --> 13:31.225
Furthermore, if stronger protections against influencers

13:31.275 --> 13:34.105
exist, retail investors may feel more comfortable

13:34.545 --> 13:35.665
participating in the stock market,

13:36.075 --> 13:38.505
which will have broader macroeconomic benefits.

13:39.295 --> 13:41.785
This might also promote additional information sharing

13:41.785 --> 13:44.865
between influencers, corporations, and retail investors.

13:45.815 --> 13:48.865
Most importantly, it will better motivate influencers

13:48.865 --> 13:50.945
to take greater care in their communications

13:51.365 --> 13:54.825
and support better information generation and dissemination.

Influencers and Their Impact on Stock Markets

00:00:00 - These people are these entities that have outsized influence on investor decisions through social media. And this is really because of their reach, the reach of influencers, the reach of the retail investors that they engage with. Combined are really shifting today's stock market information ecosystem. And they're doing this because influencer and retail trading increasingly generate stock price movements that reflect their cultural values and preferences. Information is increasingly disseminated
00:00:35 - information broker or a influencer in today's stock markets. And a further consequence is that influencer's social media activity can generate stock price movements through followers trading activity, even when that influencer has not made any statements containing concrete information directly related to the stock price or the underlying companies or issuers prospects.
00:01:04 - of a ruling in a securities fraud case brought against the activist investor Ryan Cohen, who is also the founder of chewy.com and the chairperson in current CEO of GameStop. And he is a classic influencer. And this study is trying to investigate the scope of the current securities laws as applied to the sort of gray area that has arisen as a result of influencer activity in the stock markets.
00:01:37 - They're designed to target clear deceit or manipulative intent. And the two main provisions of the securities laws that do this are section nine A and section 10 B, along with section 10 Bs accompanying rule 10 B five of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Section nine A targets manipulation and effectively its reach hinges on the
00:02:07 - Rule 10 B five has largely been used to police deceit and misrepresentation. And really what that means in practice is that it looks for fraud. Again, their focus is on lies. And this has created something of a gray area with respect to influencer accountability because less clear is the application of securities laws to situations where a FI influencer does not share false
00:02:39 - where a influencer arguably doesn't share any concrete information at all. But nevertheless, stock prices are reacting to something about the influencers behavior and the growing ubiquity of influencing has created this concern that influencers can influence their followers And profit off their followers trading while essentially steering clear of the securities laws. And retail investors are disproportionately harmed

Accountability in Social Media Stock Influence

00:03:13 - And re Bed Bath and Beyond has had a recent ruling on a motion to dismiss, which opens a potential path for accountability in precisely these gray area or borderline situations. And that's the fundamental argument of this study in Reed Bath and Beyond is the latest NA series of cases and sort of regulatory actions that adjudicate the scope of wrongdoing in sort of today's modern trading context.
00:03:43 - of influencer litigation primarily involve traditional pump and dump schemes. In a traditional pump and dump scheme, a manipulator purchases stocks at a low price that manipulator shares false information about that stock or about the company. This prompts others to buy the stock. The price gets inflated and then the manipulators will, shell sell their shares at a profit. And the securities laws are very well equipped
00:04:14 - and dump schemes regardless of the medium on which they're perpetrated. Whether you're calling somebody to manipulate or whether you're doing it on Reddit, for example. However, this recent district court ruling in, in Reed Bath and beyond indicates that the securities laws may also be flexible enough to handle wrongdoing in the influencer gray area, where again, statements may not be factually untrue, but you have situations where those statements can be interpreted
00:04:48 - and the particular beliefs held by the influencers social media followers. And this brings us to Ryan Cohen and specifically Enri Bed Bath and Beyond. So Ryan Cohen is the founder of chewy.com, the current chair of GameStop's board and it's CEO. He is this powerful influencer. He is known to his followers as Papa Cohen. He's been referred to as a meme stock king. He's got nearly 400,000 followers, all
00:05:20 - They try to sort of divine hidden information on future corporate decisions or stock price movements simply based on his social media activity. And as with other influencers, even when Cohen's social media activity contains no information directly related to the underlying issuer or company, stock prices move in response nevertheless. So on August 12th, 2022, in response
00:05:50 - and Beyond faced these grim financial prospects, which included a picture of a woman with a shopping cart at the at Bed, bed Bath and beyond, Ryan Cohen tweeted the following, at least her cart is full, followed by a smiley face moon emoji. Four days later on August 16th, Ryan Cohen filed a Schedule 13 D with the SEC stating his current holdings in Bed Bath

Influencer Impact on Stock Market Dynamics

00:06:20 - 11% stake in the company. And these are essentially the same positions Cohen had previously disclosed in March of 2022, about five months prior. Nevertheless, upon learning of Cohen's filing, retail investors purchased around $73 million in Bed Bath and Beyond stock. The share price jumped nearly 70% that same day Ryan Cohen started selling and he sold his entire stake in Bed Bath and Beyond,
00:06:52 - Ryan Cohen then disclosed the sale, the price of Bed Bath and Beyond plummeted. And Cohen, along with others, was sued by plaintiffs for alleged securities fraud. And in the lawsuit at Issue was the meaning of his August 12th tweet with his smiley face moon emoji. And Cohen filed a motion to dismiss. He argued that his tweet was neither material nor misleading.
00:07:21 - The court explained that you have these online community communities who understand this smiley moon emoji to mean things like to the moon or take it to the moon, right, that the court thought it was plausible that Cohen was telling his hundreds of thousands of followers that the stock was going up and that they should buy the stock, right? That their, that Cohen's followers perceived the smiley face moon emoji as a ri rallying cry
00:07:51 - even though Cohen had already soured on Bed Bath and Beyond. And what's really happening, and the paper makes the argument that the court is really assessing these questions of materiality in today's context of social media and influencing the court considered the meme, stock subculture, which associated according to the court a moon emoji with the implication that a stock will rise. And the court considered co Cohen's particular relationship
00:08:22 - as a powerful influencer. The court noted for example, that investors may have reasonably seen Cohen as this insider who's sympathetic to them that they had this specific relationship with Ryan Cohen or viewed themselves as having this specific relationship with Ryan Cohen. And ultimately the court relies significantly on this relationship between Ryan Cohen, this influencer and his followers,
00:08:54 - Cohen's tweet given those followers specific community beliefs. And more interestingly, the court did so for a communication that otherwise could be argued to contain no concrete information at all. This is precisely the kind of influencer communication that falls within the gray area under the securities laws that, we previously discussed. And this then opens this path

Influencers and the Future of Securities Litigation

00:09:23 - to take primacy in future securities litigation against influencers. So the reasonable investor generically has a long history in securities laws central to a securities fraud action is the requirement of materiality. And the test for materiality involves determining whether there is a substantial likelihood that the disclosure of the omitted fact would have been viewed by the reasonable
00:09:55 - of information made available. But making this determination has been notoriously thorny for courts not least because this reasonable investor figure has really alluded clear judicial or regulatory definition. However, there is existing guidance that does gesture to a reasonable rational investor, a very rational investor, one who is relatively financially sophisticated, maybe not
00:10:25 - but one who understands market concepts certainly and conducts financial and mathematical research on their own. And the standard has been criticized as creating this sort of mythical aspirational figure that is unrealistic. And similarly in dominant stock market microstructure theory, retail investors are thought of as these quote uninformed traders who act idiosyncratically and trade for reasons unrelated to information
00:10:58 - In other words, traditional legal and economic theory has given little sort of thought to the retail investors' role in capital markets. But I've argued that retail investors are only growing in power and influence, and this effect is substantially amplified by the growth of influencing and combined. Their impact really is very wide ranging from shifting the kinds of information reflected in stock prices
00:11:30 - And so perhaps it's unsurprising that a court would assess materiality from the perspective of a reasonable retail investor specifically. And this is precisely what the court did in in Reed Bath and beyond. The court pointed to quote the meme, stock subculture. The court considered Cohen specific relationship with his followers. In other words, the court did not consider
00:11:59 - The court considered the total mix of information as would be salient to a retail investor and even more specifically to a meme investor activity as a result that might previously have been thought to occur near, but not directly in violation of securities laws such as tweeting emojis, purportedly meant as a joke, but which lead to follower activity, even when that effect is arguably unintentional, might be deemed

Influencer Accountability and Retail Investor Protection

00:12:29 - of a reasonable retail investor specifically. And ultimately, viewing materiality from this perspective of a reasonable retail investor potentially opens this path forward for the millions of retail investors who have been or might be harmed by influencer activity that falls into this gray area of the securities laws. This places primacy on retail investors', interpretation of influencer's, social media activity.
00:13:02 - And I argue that it demonstrates that existing securities laws can be flexible enough to deter and punish a significant portion of problematic influencer behavior. The ruling in in Reed Bath and Beyond. While preliminary has opened a potential path forward for courts to consider the reasonable retail investor, especially when considering influencer activity. Furthermore, if stronger protections against influencers
00:13:51 - participating in the stock market, which will have broader macroeconomic benefits. This might also promote additional information sharing between influencers, corporations, and retail investors. Most importantly, it will better motivate influencers to take greater care in their communications and support better information generation and dissemination.

Faculti AI can make mistakes

Faculti

Popular in Law

Human Rights and Corruption: Problems and Potential of Individualising a Systemic Problem

A statistical approach to law school citation rankings

What is constitutional ideology?

Politics, Identity, and Class Certification on the U.S. Courts of Appeals

The Law of AI for Good

Transforming Restorative Justice for Transitional Settings

Guide

Platform and Category Pages

Contact Us

FAQs

What is Faculti?

How do you select interviews?

Interview Process

Page Structure

Popular in Law

Guide

Platform and Category Pages

Contact Us

FAQs

What is Faculti?

How do you select interviews?

Interview Process

Accessibility Options

Contrast Adjustment

Text Size Adjustment

Text Spacing Adjustment

Line Height Adjustment

Cursor Size Adjustment

Page Structure Options

Page Structure