Considering that ToS are intentionally opaque / full of legalese the average person doesn't understand, and that companies can change their ToS pretty much without warning and with minimal notification to the end user ("here's an email resembling spam saying our terms of service have changed in some way"), I don't consider this to be a legitimate defense. With Schwab you sign a contract that can't trivially be changed. I don't remember doing any such thing with Robinhood.

Why would you ever agree to something you can't even read? Your argument is such a cop out. If you can't read the ToS, take some English classes until you can.

This is getting too dumb for me. Anyone can write incomprehensible sentences if they want to. They can also hide all the important details behind a lot of rambling.

There is also the problem that reading every ToS is a denial of service attack on customers.

Interesting observation.

You're right, but I'd not make that argument here. I made a similar argument when this recalcitrant doctor was pulled of a United plane a few years back, justified in my view, and in line with the conditions of carriage. But, yeah, HN crowd wasn't pleased.

(Many said they'd never fly United again, and most people wouldn't... United share price dropped a bit, then went straight back up to where it was and beyond. Well, until COVID-19.)

Edit to add: BTW, the point is not that you should always read the TOS. The point is that you should read the TOS before complaining if something unexpected happens.

Do you read the ToS for every service that you use?

Equating speculative stock trading with opening a Facebook account is a very weird thing to do.

And reread it every time it was changed?

They notify you when it changes, so yes.

Yes.