[dragonwriter]

> Had they launched a product, sure. But this was mere talk about a future product which they've decided "to retool" after scrutiny.

It was not mere talk, it was talk about a waitlisted feature used to induce signups to (and because of a “referrals move you up the line” policy, also to induce providing personal information if third parties as referrals to) Robinhoods existing service.

That is, it was false representation used to induce people providing Robinhood things of value, and thus, arguably, commercial fraud.

[AnthonyMouse]

> That is, it was false representation used to induce people providing Robinhood things of value, and thus, arguably, commercial fraud.

That's assuming they knew the representation was false. If they reasonably expected to be able to get the insurance, claiming that they would get it was a true statement of their intentions.

[halibuthaler]

Ummm but if you want people to trust you with their money and build reputation shouldn't you do your DD and make sure what you say is true? imo RH is either reckless or deceptive, and neither is a good look for a company like them

[throwaway98434]

They hurt their reputation and they look like idiots, sure.

Above, people are suggesting that we need regulatory and/or criminal charges. There isn't any harm to customers and there isn't any evidence of fraud or criminal wrongdoing.

RH harmed themselves by looking stupid in front of the world. That's it. The rest is misguided hysteria.