Seems like a reasonable question to me. Leandro Andrade got 25-to-life for stealing $150 worth of kids' video tapes from K-Mart. But if some guys in suits steal (at least!) $34 million and they get a sternly worded letter from the SEC telling them to be best.
Lawyer Ken White, aka Popehat, regularly points out that laws about crimes appear to vary quite a bit based on how much a lawmaker can imagine that they might see the sharp end of the law. Seems like that's in play here.
The SEC appears to disagree with you, and given that they're the experts, I'm going with them. Robinhood ended up with at least tens of millions of dollars of customer money that they shouldn't have, and were covering it up with lies.
Yes, it was inaccurate in the same sense that it was inaccurate for 7-year-old me said the candy bar must have accidentally fallen into my pocket at the store.
A false statement that covers up one party gaining at another's expense is something that I'm going to presume is a lie. Especially when that false statement is made prominently, over and over. Calling that an inaccuracy strikes me as another convenient inaccuracy.
Lawyer Ken White, aka Popehat, regularly points out that laws about crimes appear to vary quite a bit based on how much a lawmaker can imagine that they might see the sharp end of the law. Seems like that's in play here.