The fact that the same person owns both does not necessarily make them dependent on one another unless they are structured or operated in a way that intertwines their activities, finances, or management.
Imagine we realized that Sundar Pichai also had a major position in Costco. So then we started to crash Costco to make Sundar Pichai direct Google policy. And the stakeholders in both companies who don't care and are just using this as retirement strategy are exposed.
This has some major levels of "I want to direct a result so badly I'm going to start spilling harms all over the fucking place" kind of economic policy.
The idea is that responsibility is held by the CEO/owner in control. So if someone owns companies A and B and they do something illegal through company A, then it's logical to say that the CEO/owner of company B has committed something illegal (it's the same person!).
I understand certain CEOs are elected by their respective boards, so it's then their decision to keep someone like this onboard.
I'd also question the bigger picture - how come is a single person allowed to be at head of so many companies. Can they really be an effective CEO in this case?
