Yeah, TOS's are famous for being one-sided and permitting all sorts of bad behavior. And for not matching the marketing promises of the product they're attached to.

They may be legally entitled to do what they've done. That doesn't make it right.

My comment is an "ought" comment, more than an "is" comment. Regulation should moot TOS's that allow this kind of rug-pulling.

This is exactly why people don't like Wall Street. It's smart to pay attention to the TOS pragmatically to protect yourself, but the TOS has absolutely no ethical relevance. To people with a well-adjusted ethical compass, a trading platform blocking trades is a violation of their social contract.

You should be aware that if you're citing the TOS in any context other than a court case, most people are going to like you less as a result.

You can't expect a reasonable person to read the TOS. They have a reasonable expectation to get the same service as any other day, even if this conflicts with Robinhood's business model, unless Robinhood made their expected behavior abundantly clear in advance.