2 ms·
The claim is that they sold that deal flow in a sub-optimal way that is expressly prohibited from them doing, and it led to consumers not getting the price that
by nrmitchi 6y ago
The claim is that they sold that deal flow in a sub-optimal way that is expressly prohibited from them doing, and it led to consumers not getting the price that they, by law, should have been given.
- gigatexal 6y agoIf that’s indeed the case then we should throw the book at them. Breaking the law is different than selling a service for free and monetizing your consumers.
- nrmitchi 6y ago> Without admitting or denying the SEC’s findings, Robinhood agreed to a cease-and-desist order prohibiting it from violating the antifraud provisions of the Securities Act of 1933 and the recordkeeping provisions of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 Oh, don't worry. Robinhood agreed to sign a piece of paper agreeing that it wouldn't break the law any more. And just to be clear, this isn't the first time that Robinhood has blatently broken the existing laws and regulation. The "infinite money" "glitch" is a situation which is straight-up codified to be not allowed (for obvious reasons). They were either incompetent or negligent. They attempted to release a "bank account" product and claimed it would be covered by insurance which it would not be. Again, either incompetence, or negligence.