I think you’re mostly right but part of what the lawsuit is about as I understand it is the idea that Robinhood is encouraging the guy to use said complex financial products that were clearly way out of his wheelhouse.
I hardly think that requiring a test and affirmation of responsibility before allowing trading of options to be "encouraging" people to use them.
If the government were to impose such restrictions on something like voting, they would rightfully be slammed as intending to restrict and discourage voting, so how can one argue in good faith that the same restrictions imposed on something else encourage that something else?
If the government were to impose such restrictions on something like voting, they would rightfully be slammed as intending to restrict and discourage voting, so how can one argue in good faith that the same restrictions imposed on something else encourage that something else?