Nowhere does it state that the gambling bet (publicly listed company) has to optimize for returns of the gamblers (shareholders).
Next quarter can be made far more profitable by taking short-term actions that destroy future customer, employee and supplier goodwill. But that just digs a big hole for future profits.
Doesn't this just prove my point?
I oversimplified my statement but would it be legal for lord Zuck to come out tomorrow and say "we are reducing ads by 90% on the platform and here's a checkbox that will disable all tracking and remove all data we have about you that you didn't explicitly upload yourself" with no alternative revenue source presented which inevitably leads to lower revenue for FB which then inevitably means reduced dividends etc.
note: I understand the users are not the "customers" and the actual equivalent would be for Zuck to say to advertisers that the cost to display ads has dropped by 90% which would be even worse for users. My point is the outcome of "lower dividends" being evidently caused by a decision made by the CEO (to now show ads anymore, to not track users behind their backs anymore, etc.) as being in the end illegal.