(WETM/CNBC) — In today’s “It’s Your Money”, we discuss Robinhood’s CEO speaking with CNBC, and a lawsuit accusing Subway of not using real tuna.
Robinhood speaks on the controversy
Vlad Tenev, Chief Executive Officer of Robinhood, spoke with CNBC on why they temporarily restricted trading on the recently popular stocks GameStop, AMC, and more.
“In order to protect the firm and protect our customers we had to limit buying in these stocks,” said Tenev, who co-founded the brokerage app in 2013. It has surged in popularity, particularly with younger investors, and helped pioneer zero-commission trading.
The CEO received harsh backlash from his comments from lawmakers and regular investors.
Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., said she would support a hearing regarding the trading restriction if necessary, condemning Robinhood’s move as “unacceptable.”
Sen. Ted Cruz, a conservative Republican from Texas, also seized on Robinhood’s branding in a post Thursday morning on Twitter. Using a bemused face emoji, Cruz posted a March 2016 tweet from Robinhood declaring, “Let the people trade,” alongside its statement announcing restrictions on GameStop and AMC.
Subway accused of using fake tuna
A class action lawsuit filed last week in California accuses Subway, the Connecticut-based fast food giant, of fraud and false advertising over the content of its tuna sandwiches, which the suit claims is an “entirely non-tuna based mixture that Defendants blended to resemble tuna and imitate its texture.”
Subway denied the allegations, telling NBC News in a statement it “delivers 100% cooked tuna to its restaurants, which is mixed with mayonnaise and used in freshly made sandwiches, wraps.”
“These baseless accusations threaten to damage our franchisees, small business owners who work tirelessly to uphold the high standards that Subway sets for all of its products, including its tuna,” Maggie Truax, Subway’s director of global PR, said in an emailed statement to NBC News. “Given the facts, the lawsuit constitutes a reckless and improper attack on Subway’s brand and goodwill, and on the livelihood of its California franchisees. Indeed, there is no basis in law or fact for the plaintiffs’ claims, which are frivolous and are being pursued without adequate investigation.”