I encourage you to present that analogy to an actual court and see how far it gets you. It's very easy to find the statutory definition of a "data broker" under California law.

This is what I mean by the fruitlessness of these kinds of legal discussions on HN. What do you want me to argue, that you're wrong to want the law to work that way?

Are you aware that not every lawyer with skin in the game shares your opinion of what a broker is?

https://www.courthousenews.com/california-drivers-accuse-flo...

Technically, most stocks are registered in the name of a securities holding company, with you named as beneficial owner. That makes it frictionless for you to buy and sell. You enjoy all the rights of ownership, unless the broker lends your shares out to someone else.

You _can_ get shares registered in your name.

And you would (rightfully) be angered if your stock broker sold your shares and pocketed the proceeds, because you own them.