The agency hit Schwab with a $200 million penalty in May, allegedly for discrepencies about how its robo-advisor collects revenues internally and how the $7.4 trillion financial services firm’s advertising implied it charges investors no advisory fee.

Robo-advisors, which typically use computer programs to automatically select low-cost exchange-traded funds for investors based on their risk tolerance and automatically rebalance the portfolios, have become increasingly popular across Wall Street, with Goldman Sachs Group Inc. rolling out their platform earlier this year.

On its website, Schwab predicted assets managed by robo-advisors will grow to $460 billion next year, from $47.3 billion in 2015.

Last week the SEC ordered robo-advisor SoFi Wealth to pay a $300,000 fine for failing to disclose conflicts of interest surrounding moving client assets to its own exchange-traded funds.

The SoFi enforcement action stems from a the robo-advisor’s decision in April 2019 to replace the third-party ETFs it had allocated to approximately 20,000 automated portfolio accounts with proprietary ETFs. It used two new ETFs sponsored by the firm’s parent company, Social Finance Inc.

The regulator said SoFi Wealth “violated its fiduciary duty” by failing to disclose to clients on its robo-advisor platform about its own economic interests in the in-house ETFs (SFY and SFYX, respectively).

“SoFi Wealth intended to use client assets managed in the SoFi Invest program to infuse cash into the newly-created, proprietary ETFs to capitalize the ETFs on the second day of trading … making the ETFs more attractive to potential investors,” the SEC said in its order.

SoFi neither admitted nor denied the SEC’s findings, but the SEC did say in imposing the $300,000 civil penalty that it “considered remedial acts promptly undertaken by SoFi Wealth and cooperation afforded the commission staff.”

In December, Robinhood agreed to pay a $65 million civil penalty, without admitting or denying SEC’s findings. A lawyer for the company said the practices “do not reflect Robinhood today.”

The SEC order found that Robinhood provided inferior trade prices that cost customers $34.1 million, even after considering the savings from not paying a commission.