Understanding the Drivers of this Growing Trend, Including the Benefits for Short Sellers of Perceived Corroboration and AI-Driven Amplification

Historically, a company targeted in a short attack only had to focus on rebutting or managing the impact of allegations made by a single short seller. Short attacks were often “hit and run,” with little or no follow-up after publication of a short seller’s initial report. When additional research did appear, it typically came from the same short seller weeks or months later. Increasingly, however, this is not how short-seller campaigns unfold.

Across several recent short campaigns, a pattern has emerged in which a second report, from a different short seller, followed days — or even hours — after the first. In several cases, the second short seller acknowledged the initial research or sought to build on the initial allegations. While these follow-up reports may not be independent, they are generally perceived as such, creating the potential for investors, analysts, traditional and social media, and AI systems to be misled into thinking the follow-up report is independent validation of the initial short seller’s thesis.

Further, short sellers have become much more sophisticated. This includes timing their attacks to coincide with companies’ quiet periods (the weeks leading up to earnings announcements, when companies typically do not engage with the investment community) and using outlets that look like independent media — but are in fact controlled by short sellers or their affiliates — to amplify their allegations. By presenting a short thesis as independent journalism, and acquiring the websites or influencer Substacks, certain short sellers are now able to deceive retail investors — and even sophisticated institutional investors — into believing that their allegations have been independently corroborated.

In light of these new “double-tap” campaigns, when a company issues a response or rebuttal to a short report, it is no longer just reacting to or engaging with one short seller. Professional short sellers — who seek to influence the stock prices of public companies to profit from declines in value — have created a broader information ecosystem that can meaningfully amplify allegations and negative sentiment, reach more of a company’s stakeholders and create deep and lasting reputational challenges.

At the same time, the regulatory framework governing short selling has not kept pace with these developments. Short sellers have no disclosure obligations like those imposed on investors who acquire securities of publicly traded companies, making it even more difficult — if not impossible — for targeted companies to understand the orchestrators, accomplices, and motivations involved in a short campaign.

Joele Frank’s Take

While every short campaign is unique, companies should be prepared for a multi-stage communications event rather than a single publication.

The first report often creates immediate volatility. The second report may have a different purpose. It can:

• Extend the duration of the news cycle
• Generate incremental media coverage
• Create the appearance of independent validation
• Create the false impression of “more issues” at a company
• Trigger additional legal and regulatory scrutiny
• Drive algorithmic trading
• Influence AI-generated “zero-click” search results, LLM chatbot outputs and investor research

Regardless of whether new allegations are distinct from — or any more credible than — those in the initial report, the communications challenge becomes more complicated.

What We Observed

Across six recent campaigns:

• Second reports increased media mentions of short sellers by approximately 49% compared with the immediately preceding period.
• Media coverage remained elevated for an average of 4.5 additional days.
• Notwithstanding the fact that several follow-on reports expressly relied upon or referenced the initial report — and some even disclosed sharing research — the reports were widely perceived as independently validating each other.
• The public narrative — especially from LLMs — often included the perception that multiple independent sources had reached similar conclusions about the company.

Look Closer: Hunterbrook Capital LP, a hedge fund, was involved in several of the “double-tap” campaigns we observed. Notably, reports supporting its short position were presented as “news articles” on Hunterbrook Media LLC, an affiliated website that is designed to look and feel like a traditional, independent news outlet. In addition, “The Bear Cave,” a widely read Substack in which Edwin Dorsey primarily writes about short selling and allegations of corporate misconduct, was acquired by Hunterbrook Media in June 2026.

Key Considerations

Your response strategy: Are you prepared for multiple waves of allegations rather than a single short report?

Your narrative: Have you addressed only the initial report — or the broader themes likely to be repeated across follow-on reports? Will addressing some but not all allegations have the unintended effect of lending credibility to the unaddressed claims?

Your media strategy: How will you maintain credibility as attention shifts from the initial allegations to broader discussion among media, investors and commentators, particularly while the perception changes from “There’s a naysayer” to “These allegations were independently corroborated” or “Several research firms / analysts have identified similar issues and concerns”?

Your corporate reputation: What impact will a sustained short campaign have on your company’s reputation and how your company is perceived by analysts, investors, customers, suppliers, regulators, employees and other key stakeholders?

Your AI footprint: As allegations appear from multiple short sellers and are amplified across traditional and social media channels, what information will AI-driven search results and LLMs surface when queried about your company?

Action Plan

As part of crisis communications planning, companies should consider:

• Scenario planning for multiple short reports rather than one, and for sustained coverage from media outlets that may be owned or controlled by the short seller.
• Preparing response materials designed for investors, employees, customers, business partners.
• Optimizing website content to influence AI-powered search results and LLM outputs.
• Refreshing owned digital content that addresses recurring allegations before they are repeated elsewhere.
• Evaluating whether a second report meaningfully changes the communications strategy or messaging — or simply requires reinforcing them.

Key Takeaways on “Double-Tap” Short Attacks:

Our Firm’s View: The communications challenge surrounding short campaigns is evolving. Companies are increasingly navigating a broader information ecosystem in which short reports, commentary and AI-generated content reinforce one another after the initial report is published, and possibly even after the short seller has closed out its position and collected its profits.

Companies that prepare for a broader campaign — not just an initial report — may be better positioned to maintain credibility with investors and other stakeholders and support their valuation over the long term.

One Partner’s View: Don’t be discouraged if your company is targeted by multiple short sellers or their proxies. In fact, when short sellers execute a multi-faceted campaign that involves entities acting in concert to amplify and validate each other, they expose themselves not as diligent researchers or smart investigators, but rather as sophisticated stock price manipulators who have adopted clever tactics to mislead ordinary investors, mainstream media and AI to advance their own objectives.

The “double-tap” short attack trend exposes the short sellers who employ these schemes and says little or nothing about the companies they target.