no, coca cola's value did not fall by 4 Beeelion USD; at most, its evamp (extrapolated total value at marginal prices) did

There are two types of bullshit that commonly go together.  I say bullshit rather than mistake, or fallacy, because we are in the realm of narrative-pushing.  The first type of bullshit is confusing the total value of a thing with its evamp, or extrapolated total value at marginal prices [0].  This is a form of innumeracy.  The second type of bullshit is fitting narratives to price fluctuations.  Doing so makes unfounded claims about what the bullshitter knows about the causality involved, and in any case is often applied to noise rather than real moves, allowing the bullshit narrator to select whether the item is "up on" or "down on" the event they are bullshitting about.

[0] <https://wibblement.blogspot.com/2021/11/evamp-market-cap-evamp-extrapolated.html>

The particular case here came to my attention via this tweet:

 

 

in which they claim "[..] Ronaldo's removal of [bottles] coincided with a $4bn fall in the company's value".

 

But, on trying to load the article, we see it has been removed:

Due to the EU Cookie Directive, the meaningless and pointless verbiage about cookies takes up the majority of the screen space.  A link to the reason for the removal is there, but, again, because of the EU Cookie Directive, each individual MEP who voted for it, the members of the Commission which presumably proposed it, The Guardian's interpretation of it, and every other quisling who has implemented this cookie nonsense, we ... have to scroll down a bit:

 

That's nice, they still have "corrections and clarifications", which I remember also existed back when the Guardian had some integrity.

And so:

The claimed title (we can't check, because the article is retracted -- we just have the tweet) makes a stronger claim here than in the tweet: they are saying the article article made the causal claim definitively, rather than insinuating it with the "coincided with" thing.

The "correction" goes on to say their temporal association was wrong, in that the price had already gone, thus reinforcing the wrong and very stupid idea from the original that temporal association is causation.  It goes on to say: "and other factors may also have contributed".  So, factors other than the thing happening AFTER the other thing "may" ALSO have contributed.  No, dipshits, not also, the after thing did not cause the before thing, AT ALL.

The first and last bits of the "correction" contain the most extraordinary and damning admission by the Guardian, which is: they apparently publish, without any critical evaluation, any garbage fed to them by agencies, including Australian Associated Press.  Apparently, they think they can blame AAP for their own publication of bullshit.  In reality, uncritical publication of others' bullshit is much worse than simply coming own with your own bullshit, in-house.

The "correction" also mentions "a $4bn fall in the company's share price", perpetuating another factual error from the original article, and making it worse, because now, instead of talking about "value", and merely conflating evamp [0] and value, they have committed a further conflation between something like "market cap" and "share price".

The correction is worse than the original mistake.