In your world, do we blame casinos when someone goes in and gambles away their money? My naive perspective sees no difference. The concept of an individual being responsible for their own terrible choices really seems to have changed unbelievably in the last 20 years.
If Robinhood wants to carry same responsibility as casinos, they should call themselves a casino.
Then they will loose certain privileges like in UK it's illegal for casinos to provide leverage or 'gambling debt', they will be subject to payout percentage regulation, etc. https://www.casino.co.uk/guides/payout-percentages-rtp/
Try CTRL+F "suitability" for a five-second read of why the casino comparison doesn't apply here.
For the perspective that Robinhood owns his risk somehow, from not following their suitability guidelines, I'm not familiar with any of this so can't speak about it. Naively reading this, it appears to be extremely open ended, requiring a consistent internal process for approval, along with a warning, rather than anything specific.
The burden's on the firm to demonstrate why it believed the customer was qualified to trade the product, and to demonstrate that it made an effort to evaluate the customer's goals, finances, and needs.
> ... shall recommend to any customer any transaction ...
> ... that the recommended transaction is not suitable
Was Robinhood recommending transactions, or just enabling transactions? Even if not, this seems very open ended with no specifics, since “reasonable” is up for interpretation. I suppose we’ll see, probably sooner rather than later. I assume some actual specifics will result from all of this though.