I don't think buying shares (a form of gambling) is the same as buying products and services.
Companies make "sale pitch" to potential investors (I mean what company doesn't say what the investors want to hear?), and it should be the potential investors to analysis to decide for themselves where they should place their bet and if what the companies claim has any ground. Statements on what a company claims they could do do not have tangible way of measuring, unless figures and numbers are included in their claims alongside it.
So unless Nvidia explicitly promised their investors that they 100% guarantee profit and 0% chance of losing money, I don't think the investors really have anyone to blame, but their own poor judgement. Investors want compensation when they lose money, but what about the time they gotten more money or hit higher target than originally promised? May be companies should get to keep the excessive profit and not have to give to shareholders when that happens then?
The saying of "don't put all the eggs into one basket" exist for a reason, with the realistic expectation of the outcome of "you win some, you lose some", with the hope of the wins outweighing the losses. If every time a company loses money and they get sued by the investors because they don't do as well as they had hope for, then how is a company going to survive or get better when they have parasites trying to feed off their flesh when they are fighting to recover from injuries?
Not defending Nvidia in anyway, but I think the sense of entitlement coming from investors in the stock market these days is just ridiculous. Investments back in the days is a form of gamble and everyone know the scores, but nowadays it seem that people don't want to take responsibility for their own poor judgement and just see the stock market as a guaranteed money-growing farm. Hell, even for a farm there's no guarantee that it will do well and grow indefinitely every year, and there's good year and bad year affected by various factors.