As recently as February at the hearing on the GameStop saga on the stock exchanges, the head of the trading app Robinhood, Vlad Tenev, was ruefully answering questions from the American congressman.

The broker had temporarily restricted trading in the video game company's shares for its customers - thus triggering a shit storm and drawing the attention of the authorities to itself.

In a 27-page letter that David Dusseault, President of Robinhood Financial, sent to the powerful US financial regulator, the SEC, published this week, there is no trace of remorse or reluctance.

In the letter, the broker comments on how he communicates with his customers in the app and in the web application.

The SEC calls this “Digital Engagement Practices” - DEPs for short.

"Our mobile app is not a game"

The broker, founded in 2013, has long been accused of “gamifying” trading in securities, for example through digital confetti when certain milestones are reached or a simple user interface. In the letter, Robinhood vehemently defends itself against this accusation. Robinhood complains that none of the practices complained of are new to the industry. Even in the past, customers were congratulated on opening an account or on their first investment, then physically - now digital. Technology has made it possible to cost-effectively interact with clients who have historically been neglected and who could not have afforded the advice of investment professionals, it said.

Most of the 22 million users, 98 percent, the US broker states, are not day traders with a penchant for risk.

Compared to other companies, there are no trading competitions, and there are no like or partial functions as in other social networks.

The interaction on the platform takes place exclusively between Robinhood and the customers, they say, and further: "Our mobile app is not a game."

Paternalistic view

Robinhood worries that at the center of the SEC audit is a paternalistic view that does not trust the previously less privileged players on the stock market to make independent, rational decisions. "We do not believe that there are conflicts of interest in connection with our web- and app-based customer interactions that make additional regulation necessary."

The Californian neobroker believes that the design of the app improves the user experience should not be called “gamification”.

And it is also not his intention to manipulate customers with a good user interface.

Robinhood also compares itself in the letter with the iPhone manufacturer Apple, whose cell phones were designed for the convenience of customers - and mobile apps should also be designed for customer satisfaction.

The supervisory authorities have de facto welcomed this so far.

The SEC first had to produce evidence and reliable data that showed that additional regulation was necessary.

Speculation alone was not enough.

"First Amendment"

Robinhood also invokes the United States' first amendment to the constitution, the "First Amendment," which sets out the rules on freedom of expression for defense. Regulation would restrict the broker's free speech. The bottom line is that it can be assumed that additional control in this field will raise significant legal questions. From the broker's point of view, every attempt to regulate digital interaction falls under the test of the right to free speech. And that, according to Robinhood's threat, has rarely survived regulation.

The financial regulator's pressure on Robinhood, however, could increase even further.

This is not just about a possible gamification of the app, but also about Robinhood's business model of selling customer orders to market makers such as Citadel Securities.

This practice is also known as Payment For Order Flow and is currently being examined by the SEC under its new boss, Gary Gensler.

A ban is thus in the room, which could seriously jeopardize the broker's main source of income.

When it was announced at the end of August, the stock exchange novice's price fell by 7 percent.