As I understand it Netflix really doesn't have the option of taking a principled stand here (let me know if I'm wrong) due its financial responsibilities toward shareholders.
If they had incorporated as a public-benefit corporation would they have additional freedom to say "We won't participate in this market on ethical grounds?"
Did you read the bottom half of the entry's summary or the entry itself? Specifically:
> In the 1950s and 1960s, states rejected Dodge repeatedly
> The general legal position today is that the business judgment that directors may exercise is expansive. Management decisions will not be challenged where one can point to any rational link to benefiting the corporation as a whole.
and quotes from a number of law journals:
> Dodge is often misread or mistaught as setting a legal rule of shareholder wealth maximization. This was not and is not the law.
> the rule of wealth maximization for shareholders is virtually impossible to enforce as a practical matter. The rule is aspirational, except in odd cases.
Edit: 2017, not this year
> When pharmaceutical company Depomed Inc. of the U.S. said this month it is fielding federal and state inquiries over its marketing of opioid painkillers, a stock drop was likely to follow.
> But it was less expected, legal experts say, that shareholders would then sue the company for securities-law violations, alleging that Depomed made false and misleading statements over a more than two-year period leading up to the Aug. 7 announcement in its earnings statement.
A lawsuit about making false statements is entirely different than a lawsuit saying a company is insufficiently profit-seeking. Unless the article broke down how many of those record lawsuits were actually over low earnings (which I can't tell), I don't think this shows anything.
I think I disagree with you a little even regarding false statements suits, though: Just as a thought experiment: let’s say you lose millions in company X stock because they pull out of a market you think they should have stayed in. I would think going through the company’s public statements and claiming that you were mislead about their commitment to said market would be a decent angle from which to attack them. But that’s just thinking out loud, and I am no lawyer.