[hexrun]

I previously posed a question to you all fine gentlemen whether what WSB was doing to GME was illegal (or is doing rather).
I think everyone pretty much agreed that WSB did nothing wrong.
But then I saw this RobinHood's BS about restricting stocks purchases and I am thinking that has be illegal.
I feel like it messes with the free market principles.
I am wondering, however, if there is any couter-argument to this.
Is there any valid legal reason why RobinHood or any other trading platforms should be allowed to restrict stock purchases?
Are there any Dodd-Frank rules that requires a certain asset-liability ratio or maintenance requirements so that they can pass the stress test or something?
I don't think "we are protecting our customers" or "private companies can do what they want" are gonna cut it.

[KrappyKroger]

I guess the counterargument would be that restricting trading would prevent any newbie traders from doing dumb shit like taking out a loan to buy GME?

[Kirk Kirk]

I think its absolutely ridiculous what they did. It is an open market. I assumed that means I am able to place my money where I see fit. Not where they "allow" me to

[bennyv]

Just doesn't sit right with me. Even though I don't really believe the GME craze, the stockmarket is meant to be a somewhat free and open place where anyone can throw in a few bucks and try to make them grow. In my eyes it is undoubtable that Robinhood were paid off by associates of Melvin Capital, no matter what Robinhood says to defend themselves.

[paulygggggy]

I think it's fucked up but I don't think it should be illegal. It's not like they're a monopoly where you can only buy stocks through them. It is hilarious that their name is Robinhood though, hope that bites them in the ass.