Many wouldn’t consider Twitter to be a blue chip stock.
Twitter is just the holding that's most likely to get noticed, not because it's the least "Blue Chip" of the holdings, but because it's the most likely to cause (arguably justified) moral outrage. The morality has little bearing on the justification for the case, but it might have a big impact on whether people are likely to pursue the case in the first place.
It seems to me that the presence of other even less "blue-chip" holdings in Fidelity's blue chip funds would make a lawsuit more credible, not less credible.
That said, I don't see many entities with the will and funding to pursue this lawsuit. The SEC has way more obvious problems to solve than clarifying the definition of "blue chip" in court, institutional investors aren't usually going to pursue a suit on moral outrage, and the average individual has no chance in court against Fidelity's legal team.
From the prospectus:
>Principal Investment Strategies
> [...]
> Normally investing at least 80% of assets in blue chip companies (companies that, in Fidelity Management & Research Company LLC (FMR)'s view, are well-known, well-established and well-capitalized), which generally have large or medium market capitalizations.
Fidelity has wide latitude to decide what counts as "blue chip". On top of that, even if there are companies that aren't "blue chip", it's fine as they're below 20%.
The comment you're replying to is more "that reasoning would imply Z, which does not appear to be the case."
(If it was assumed that people already knew about those other companies, then the comment would be more calling out an isolated demand for rigor... which is also not whataboutism despite occasionally being denounced as such.)
...which is why taking that question literally probably isn't being a good listener. If someone is asking a question with an obvious answer if taken literally, probably that means they're not intending to ask that question literally. Yes, they could ask their question more specifically, but it's up to us as listeners to try to understand people too. Communication, famously, is not a one-person activity[1].
Typically I'd assume "can X be sued for Y?" means "can one reasonably hope to win a civil suit against X for Y?" unless I have reason to believe that the speaker is very un-knowledgeable about U.S. law.
[1] https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php/1984:_Misinterpre...
It’s “blue chip” but it’s also “growth”. Words which can mean anything depending on how they’re defined in the prospectus.