Right, and the ironic thing is that the founder having majority voting shares was allegedly justified by the idea that it would solve the innovators dilemma by

Right, and the ironic thing is that the founder having majority voting shares was allegedly justified by the idea that it would solve the innovators dilemma by not having the founders ("proven" capable of building successful products) being accountable to the short-term whims of the shareholder. That said... my original point was that the shareholders don't sue in such situations. Rather, they just vote out the board (and hence CEO). If they could sue the board/CEO for not making as much profit as theoretically possible, they would have already sued Meta or Alphabet already despite having only minority shares. Proving to a court that the board/CEO isn't acting in the shareholder's best interest isn't as easy as comparing the projected returns of two mutually-exclusive deals -- they can argue that the ostensibly less profitable deal actually has great long term benefits.