No. WSB is not "a regulated entit[y]" that "disadvantage[d] investors or otherwise unduly inhibit[ed] their ability to trade certain securities". Robinhood is and did.

That's the first part but the second part is a separate statement against market manipulation generally. In the law, manipulation is forbidden to anyone, not just brokers and dealers.

I'd say you might be wrong on both counts:

1. preventing people from buying GME at, whatever, $300 might not have been disadvantaging them, and

2. it might not have been unduly inhibiting their ability to trade, but duly so.

You are so biased because you think GME is overvalued at $300.

Your bias even makes you defend Robinhood’s action to disable cash accounts buying certain stocks as DULY.

Wow

People who are anti-robinhood thinks it’s a message to RH.

Those who are anti-WSB thinks it a warning to WSB.

Might be both.

It definitely is. The next sentence specifies market participants which would include both WSB and hedge funds.

Quant firms made more money then WSB did trading on the momentum I'm sure. Do you really think retail was the only one pumping?

> actions taken by regulated entities

WSB isn't regulated, that is companies like Robinhood

> we will act to protect retail investors when the facts demonstrate abusive or manipulative trading activity

Specifically calls out retail investors (i.e. WSB). I read it the opposite way, but I can see how it could be interpreted as a warning to both.

It boils down where and who did the manipulation?

140% shorts, including naked shorts from Melvin?

RH stopping buys but allowing sells?

Conclusive proof that Citidel put their finger on the scales to force RH's actions?

WSB's members constantly chanting hold/diamond hands/ride to the moon?

There's a lot at play, and further examination will make for a good post mortem...

There's a weird aspect of meme-as-protection. It's hard for a regulating entity to cite memes and seemingly offensive speech.

WSB is not a regulated entity, but presumably Robinhood is.

The "trading activity" is in the "in addition" sentence, it doesn't have to refer exclusively to regulated entities.