There isn't, but I think one can make the case that there should be. At the very least, communication from Robinhood, from the exchanges and from regulators was piss poor. As a result, we have half the internet wrapped up in some Ken Griffin as Gordon Gecko Batman conspiracy theory.
Robinhood was criticized for marketing day trading to people who, to a large degree, didn't know better. The counterargument was people knew what they were getting into and were free to do it. Fair enough.
This adds a new wrinkle. It wasn't ever a day trading platform! A day trading platform should be able to handle high volumes. It should be able to handle increased collateral requirements. It should be able to handle some market makers going offline. What Robinhood did is contractually allowed. But it flies in the face of what they held themselves out to be.
Robinhood sold a turd doughnut, folks said "it's fine, I want a turd doughnut," and then the turd turned out to be uranium.
What they did was effectively form a public stock pool for the purpose of disrupting the orderly function of the market, and drive up the price beyond all reason. This kind of thing used to happen regularly a century ago until regulation was enacted in order to stem that kind of abuse. If the SEC weren't in what appears to be a coma, they should have enforced those rules days ago by completely halting trading in the stock. But it seems that falls on private companies now for some reason.
On top of that it turns out that the one person bidding is part of a museum that has a significant stake in the auction house.
Of course comparisons like that break quickly. But it is very obvious that market-makers (or other players behind the scenes) were extremly worried about the coming squeeze and did that to stop the stock from going higher.
Especially for something as complicated as security law, I'd expect to see an entire section on market manipulation laying out what the precedent says they need to allege to substantiate their claims and then detailing enough facts (or beliefs to be made good on in discovery) to make that claim credible. Without it, the complaint comes across less as "Robinhood clearly broke the law" and more as "I'm whining because I don't like the contract I signed with Robinhood."
[1]https://cdn.robinhood.com/assets/robinhood/legal/Customer%20...
Of course you might not always win. In the case of Robinhood, since people could still close their existing positions there might not be a very strong case to be able to prove damages. But to me it's still not a crazy lawsuit to attempt based on how many people were expecting to be able to use RH to buy this stock today, and that's what the legal system is there for.
Legally this is nothing at all like not serving a specific brand of alcohol at the local bar.
IANAL, and I’ve only dipped my toe into studying FINRA while doing research on decentralized exchanges, but as I understand it, FINRA regulations impose a lot of requirements on brokers, particularly around fair dealing and around preventing market manipulation.
Do you know what short selling more than 100% of the available stock does? It's the same as if every single stock owner collectively decided to sell their shares. Worse 140% of the float was shorted which means the amount of people that sold their shares was bigger than the entire market. That's an extreme example of market manipulation and that is what happened to GME. It was trading at $4 per share when its fundamentals would value it at $20.
You're also forgetting that this started with the Chewy CEO buying a 13% share in the market because he wanted to turn Gamestop into a growing company. That was the day when short sellers should have started sweating but they kept shorting more and more. They could have made a lot of money by closing their positions. If they had done so they could have shorted Gamestop again once its digital business turns out to be a dud and short it again with almost no risk. Why on earth did they not do the responsible thing? Come on. It's extremely crazy what they did and it can only be explained by greed. When you short a stock from $20 or more to $4 the only upside left is that the stock literally goes to $0. That's a measly $4 when you already have safe $16 gains per share.
Unfortunately they failed to close their shorts and become rich. I don't know exactly how much Melvin Capital had in shorts but they probably could have made $3-6 billion off reasonably safe shorts. If they started at $3 billion they would have basically trippled their starting capital. That's a bitcoin bubble level of return with a fraction of the risk. It was almost guaranteed money.
Now enter greed. They never exited their shorts until recently and they probably didn't exit all of them. Other hedgefunds still keep shorting the stock even though it is going up astronomically.
How does wall street bets enter the picture? Wallstreet bets is just a place where your average retail investor posts some memes about how much money they have lost. They've grown thick skin and are willing to trade $300 or $600 with the full expectation of losing the entire investment. They absolutely love household brands. They shill Nokia, Blackberry and also Gamestop. Here is the thing. They know that short sellers are holding the bag and completely "overshorted" the market and put themselves into a really bad position of their own making. They started buying the stock because it fits with the WSB theme. They value the stock like a beanie baby. The stock itself is what they care about, not how much it costs and that means they will not sell their precious stock. It's like any other consumer good. They are basically decorating their broker trading apps with stocks and the accompanying losses. It's purely about fun.
Okay now lets go back to what you said.
> The only manipulation anyone is engaging in are the WSB people,
As I said they basically buy shares and hold them. What I haven't said is that WSB is a tiny fraction of the buyers of GME. There are lots of large institutional traders investing into GME. The only difference is that WSB types tend to be slow and just end up holding the stock way too long. Either by accident or intentionally. This idiotic slowness is actually very bad for short sellers because they bank on desperate people selling their shares in a panic. It's a situation in which the disadvantaged retail trader somehow does not suffer from his weaknesses.
>and they should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law,
They aren't breaking any laws. The short sellers are potentially doing illegal naked shorts. We don't know but considering that more than the 60 million shares are shorted its not impossible that 5 million of them are naked.
>and should be made to forfeit any and all profits made from this criminal scheme
What about the act of selling all shares in a market to artificially drop the value of a share below its fundamental value? Why is that not a criminal scheme? I'll repeat, if you let the short sellers get away with this then they can get away with anything. They can tank any stock simply through the act of shorting. If shorting 100% isn't enough then they'll go for %200. If that isn't enough they will short %300. There is no limit to how many shares you can short just like there is no limit to how much debt banks can create if it wasn't for reserve requirements. With this strategy you can reduce the market cap of any stock to zero. Think of destroying Apple overnight. That's what you can do with naked shorts.
>plus penalties and a permanent ban from trading securities.
The only counter strategy against an over shorted stock is to just buy it. There is absolutely nothing illegal about buying stocks. However, if you make it impossible to buy it then you basically make the short selling scheme self fulfilling because it has no natural predator.
It's pretty simple really: If you want to sell short a stock, you need to borrow it first. You can only borrow it from someone who owns the stock. But each short sale also creates a new corresponding long position that can again be lent out for more short selling.
Example: Let there be a stock with a float of 100 shares that you own. You are a long-term investor L1 who loans out these stocks (for a fee) to a short seller S1. S1 borrows the stock, and sells it to another long-term investor L2. There is now a short interest of 100 shares, or 100% of the float. But L2 can again lend out those shares to another short seller S2 who sells the shares to yet another investors L3. Now you have a short interest of 200 shares, or 200% of the stocks float. But absolutely nothing illegal like naked short selling has happened, because the sum of all short and long positions still equals the float of +100. That's simply who this works.
But now we have a bunch of ignorant amateurs spreading conspiracy theories while pumping up a largely worthless company to a ridiculous valuation. And that is market manipulation, because there is no fundamental reason why this stock should be this expensive. What's more, transacting in a security for the sole purpose of raising or depressing its price in an attempt to induce others to buy or sell that security is a violation of 15 U.S. Code § 78i. As hundreds or even thousands of posts on reddit and other sites will confirm, that is exactly what these people are doing. They are publicly admitting to the crime.
Regulators cannot let this stand, because otherwise you are encouraging more of this kind of market manipulation and abuse. An example needs to be made out of those who are responsible.
This exact point turned up 4 hours ago in another thread:
> Rigging quotes, prices, or trades to make it look like there is more or less demand for a security than is the case.
By restricting only buying, they effectively rigged the prices to make it look like there's less demand than is the case.