I'm not sure I understand - could you elaborate on what you mean?

you talk about margin debt in a topic about a sliver of Department of Education loans as if there is any similarity into the structure, circumstances and participants

Department of Education's outcome is a unilateral decision by the confirmed head of a federal agency, the latter requiring something far more involved that nobody is asking for.

I state explicitly that in the article the justification and determination of "harm" is unclear so it's impossible to really have an in-depth comparison.

However, I will say the fact that it's DoE related isn't really relevant at all. From the article it seems the main point was that students were misrepresented and later harmed as a result of taking a loan.

Those particular circumstances do happen to be shared in some instances of taking on margin debt.

I see, but that outcome requires a court of an act of Congress

much more improbable than a regulator waking up on that side of the bed