How to navigate reputational impact and investor confidence in a shifting policy landscape

The recent lawsuit against Charter Communications is a clear example of how public policy and corporate strategy can collide. At the heart of the case is a question many companies face: How do you take credit for your contributions without overstating your control over external factors? 

The core issue: Overpromising and underdelivering 

Charter is being sued for allegedly downplaying the impact of the Affordable Connectivity Program (ACP) ending — a federal initiative that gave $30 monthly broadband discounts to over 23 million low-income Americans. Investors claim the company misled them by minimizing the risk of customer churn and revenue loss tied to the program’s termination. 

This case serves as a powerful reminder of a few key lessons:

• Reputational risk is a financial risk: The mere presence of the lawsuit itself is a likely blow to Charter's reputation, potentially suggesting a lack of transparency and an attempt to mask business vulnerabilities. That kind of thing can erode trust with investors, customers and the public, and can lead to a decline in stock price and a tarnished brand image. 
• Public programs are not permanent: Companies that build business models around public subsidies must be transparent with investors about the risks associated with a program's potential termination. The abrupt end of the ACP shows that even widely popular, bipartisan programs can be subject to political change. 
• Material misrepresentation is a legal minefield: The lawsuit's central claim is that Charter made "materially false and misleading statements." This isn't just a public relations problem. It's a legal one. When executives' statements about a program's impact on business performance are found to be misleading, the financial consequences can be severe. 

The question of ownership and credit 

For companies and organizations that partner with public programs, a delicate balance must be struck. How do you highlight the positive social and economic impacts of your work without creating a false impression of your control over the program's future? 

• Be a partner, not the owner: When working on public-private initiatives, companies should frame their contributions in terms of partnership and collaboration. Instead of saying, "We provided broadband to X number of people," a more accurate and safer statement would be, "Through a partnership with the ACP, we helped provide broadband access to X number of people." This distinction acknowledges the public program's role and shifts the focus to the client's collaborative effort. 
• Focus on the impact, not just the numbers: Instead of simply reporting on customer growth tied to a public program, highlight the broader, lasting impacts. For example, a company could showcase stories of how its service, made possible by the program, enabled a student to access online education or a senior citizen to connect with telehealth services. This strategy builds reputational value based on positive outcomes, which are more resilient to policy changes. 
• Disclose risks and dependencies: When communicating with investors and the public, it's crucial to be upfront about the business's dependency on public funding. This transparency may seem risky in the short term, but it protects against future legal and reputational damage. 

The Charter lawsuit underscores that in today's environment, a company's ability to navigate political and economic uncertainty is a key indicator of its long-term viability.    

For businesses that rely on public-private partnerships, the lesson is clear: Authentic, transparent communication about your role and the risks involved is not just a best practice — it's a critical component of risk management.