> 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, censuring it, and requiring it to pay a $65 million civil penalty.
A) SEC should remove the option of "without admitting or denying" this time
B) The CEO is choosing to speak in double speak because anything he says will violate the antifraud provisions after already being slapped for violating the antifraud provisions. (isn't the point of a law for the punishment to be a little more than agreeing not the violate the law? circular civil suit that should have been referred to the DOJ)
C) Refer current actions to the DOJ and this prior settlement that was violated.
I mean the fraud here is fairly eh. They gave a smaller price improvement (but still beat nbbo) relative to other discount brokerages. The lie was that they delivered same great price as other discount brokerages. However, most of their clients were small and still net-saved money by not paying the flat fee. The practice ended in 2018.
I think outside of specific sanction any resulting regulation should be a comprehensive restriction on payment for order flow, as part of the already ongoing populist trend of valuing data and considering it users property with its own property protections.
