Are websites like r/WSB illegal due to market manipulaion?
<p><strong>Note: I am not invested in HTZ or GME. This is not investment advice and is in no way to be construed as investment advice.</strong></p>
<hr />
<p>Websites like <a href="https://www.reddit.com/r/wallstreetbets" rel="nofollow noreferrer">r/wallstreetbets</a> can cause herd investments in various stocks.</p>
<p>This is not unique to WSB and also exists anywhere stocks are discussed publicly (twitter has many accounts touting investment ideas).</p>
<p><strong>Recent examples being Hertz and Gamestop:</strong></p>
<ul>
<li><a href="https://markets.businessinsider.com/news/stocks/hertz-stock-price-skyrockets-since-filing-bankruptcy-traders-global-holdings-2020-6-1029285231" rel="nofollow noreferrer">https://markets.businessinsider.com/news/stocks/hertz-stock-price-skyrockets-since-filing-bankruptcy-traders-global-holdings-2020-6-1029285231</a></li>
<li><a href="https://www.cbsnews.com/news/gamestop-stock-price-volatility/" rel="nofollow noreferrer">https://www.cbsnews.com/news/gamestop-stock-price-volatility/</a></li>
</ul>
<p>Are the websites, and the advice they &quot;appear&quot; to give, illegal? Is this market manipulation or could one be accused by posting on these websites as a &quot;market manipulator&quot;?</p>
<p>Or, are the websites fully legal and are just &quot;opinions&quot; that others reading can construe in any way they want.</p>
<p>I am reminded of SEC vs Lebed:</p>
<ul>
<li><a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2000/09/21/business/sec-says-teenager-had-after-school-hobby-online-stock-fraud.html" rel="nofollow noreferrer">https://www.nytimes.com/2000/09/21/business/sec-says-teenager-had-after-school-hobby-online-stock-fraud.html</a></li>
<li><a href="http://laweconomicscapital.com/2019/01/more-on-internet-stock-manipulations-sec-v-lebed-2000-revisited%EF%BB%BF/" rel="nofollow noreferrer">http://laweconomicscapital.com/2019/01/more-on-internet-stock-manipulations-sec-v-lebed-2000-revisited%EF%BB%BF/</a></li>
</ul>
<p>Thank you for your interpretations</p>
<hr />
<p><strong>Edit</strong> Coincidentally, this article just came out:</p>
<ul>
<li><a href="https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-01-26/reddit-fueled-rallies-like-gamestop-s-defy-easy-crackdown-by-sec?srnd=premium" rel="nofollow noreferrer">https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-01-26/reddit-fueled-rallies-like-gamestop-s-defy-easy-crackdown-by-sec?srnd=premium</a></li>
</ul>

<p><a href="/questions/tagged/united-states" class="post-tag" title="show questions tagged &#39;united-states&#39;" rel="tag">united-states</a></p>
<p>That is going to depend greatly on the circumstances. In the US generally anyone may express an opinion on the value or merits of an investment, indeed that is protected speech under the first amendment.</p>
<p>However, a person with an interest in a stock or other security who publishes an opinion or statement intended to deceive people, with the further intent of profiting by the deception, may well have committed securities fraud. If the published text contains false statements of fact, known to the author to be false, or that the author knows have not been checked and might well be false, that is additional evidence of such fraud.</p>
<p>There are other cases in which such posting of an alleged &quot;opinion piece&quot; might be criminal or an actionable tort.</p>
<p>But that would not make the <strong>site</strong> illegal. It would be the specific acts by specific people that would be illegal. Only if the site were routinely used for such unlawful purposes and seemed to have no legitimate purpose would one be likely to say that the site was illegal, and even then it is a stretch.</p>

united-states fraud sec