Connect with us
DAPA Banner

Crypto World

Meta Platforms (META) Shares Fall by Around 8%

Published

on

Meta Platforms (META) Shares Fall by Around 8%

Yesterday, shares of Meta Platforms saw a sharp decline, dropping by approximately 8%, with trading closing below the $550 level for the first time since late April 2025.

Why META Shares Declined

The move was driven by a combination of factors, including:

→ Jury ruling. According to media reports, a jury ordered Meta to pay $375 million for misleading parents about the safety of Instagram and Facebook. The court also found the company liable for developing addictive algorithms that harm teenagers’ mental health.

→ Confirmed capital expenditure (CapEx) for 2026 in the range of $115–135 billion. Significant funds are being directed towards energy infrastructure, including a 6.6 GW nuclear energy deal to power the Prometheus supercomputer. The market may question whether returns on AI investments will justify such large-scale spending.

Advertisement

Sentiment has also been weighed down by reports of plans to cut up to 20% of the workforce. While layoffs are typically viewed positively due to cost savings, in this case they may signal that profit margins are being squeezed more than expected due to AI-related expenditure.

Technical Analysis of META

At the end of January, we:
→ constructed a system of two trend channels;
→ noted that META’s share price had moved above the psychological $700 level.

As it turned out, this was a bull trap formed in the wake of strong quarterly earnings. In early February, the price fell towards the lower boundary of the long-term ascending channel, and by the 13th, that boundary was broken under selling pressure.

As a result, the upward trajectory is losing relevance, giving way to the previously identified descending trend channel. In this context, the bearish breakout zone at $620–640 may now act as resistance, where sellers previously showed strength.

Additionally, it is worth noting that:
→ the psychological $600 level has lost its role as support;
→ yesterday’s candle featured a wide body with a close near the low, accompanied by high volumes — a clear sign of heavy selling pressure.

Advertisement

Against this backdrop, it cannot be ruled out that continued bearish control may push META’s price towards the lower boundary of the red channel.

Buy and sell stocks of the world’s biggest publicly-listed companies with CFDs on FXOpen’s trading platform. Open your FXOpen account now or learn more about trading share CFDs with FXOpen.

This article represents the opinion of the Companies operating under the FXOpen brand only. It is not to be construed as an offer, solicitation, or recommendation with respect to products and services provided by the Companies operating under the FXOpen brand, nor is it to be considered financial advice.

Advertisement

Source link

Continue Reading
Click to comment

You must be logged in to post a comment Login

Leave a Reply

Crypto World

After Kalshi Appeal, Prediction Markets Fight Could Head to Supreme Court

Published

on

Law, CFTC, Court, Kalshi, Prediction Markets

An appellate court is expected to reach a decision after hearing arguments from Kalshi and lawyers representing the state of Nevada.

Some legal experts speculated that the state vs. federal jurisdiction battle over regulating prediction markets companies could soon be headed to the United States Supreme Court.

On Thursday, the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit heard oral arguments from lawyers representing prediction markets platform Kalshi and Nevada authorities over the state’s ban on the prediction markets’ event contracts. The appeal was over a lower court decision preventing Kalshi from offering certain event-based contracts in Nevada, based on claims that the company needed a gaming license.

Advertisement
Law, CFTC, Court, Kalshi, Prediction Markets
Thursday oral arguments by Kalshi and the State of Nevada. Source: US Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit

The appellate judge overseeing Thursday’s oral arguments and the lawyer for Kalshi acknowledged that there had been several state-level enforcement actions against the company and other prediction market platforms, including criminal charges filed in Arizona. However, last week a federal court blocked Arizona authorities from enforcing the state’s gambling laws on Kalshi’s event contracts.

“I think the body of case law does demonstrate that what we really need to avoid here is having a state and a federal court considering exactly the same issue at exactly the same time and potentially reaching different outcomes,” said Colleen Sinzdak, representing Kalshi.

Related: CFTC probes oil futures trades tied to Trump’s moves in Iran: Report

Central to Kalshi’s argument was that the platform’s event contracts were “swaps” falling under the purview of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) rather than state gaming authorities. CFTC Chair Michael Selig has backed this position in the case of Crypto.com’s prediction markets against Nevada authorities.

The appellate court did not immediately announce a decision following oral arguments. Any ruling could affect how state courts treat prediction market platforms like Kalshi and Polymarket as policymakers come to terms with the growing market, expected to reach $1 trillion by 2030.

Advertisement

Coinbase’s top lawyer weighs in on prediction market arguments

Coinbase chief legal officer Paul Grewal, whose company was not a party to the Kalshi proceedings but has a stake in the prediction markets fight, speculated that the case could go the US Supreme Court.

“The questions at oral argument are an unreliable signal in predicting the leanings of a court,” said Coinbase chief legal officer Paul Grewal in a Thursday X post following the oral arguments. “Either way, I stand by my longstanding prediction— the Supreme Court will resolve whether sports [contracts] on [Designated Contract Markets] are swaps subject to the exclusive jurisdiction of the CFTC.”

The US Supreme Court gave states the authority to regulate sports gambling in its 2018 decision in Murphy v. National Collegiate Athletic Association.

Advertisement

Magazine: Should users be allowed to bet on war and death in prediction markets?