I bet Ned is not so happy with his daughter right now.
https://401kspecialistmag.com/fidelity-ensnared-in-mit-401k-quid-pro-quo-allegations/
https://www.thinkadvisor.com/2019/08/06/mit-sued-over-alleged-401k-quid-pro-quo-with-fidelity/
According to the filing, since Fidelity became MIT’s recordkeeper, MIT obtained $23 million in donations from the Fidelity Foundation.
On the surface it would seem Rule 2010 would present a problem. But remember - Fidelity Brokerage Services is the FINRA member and they are not the 401k provider. Nor is Abby Johnson a FINRA registered rep.
You do know the entire financial services industry are members on FINRA which is a self regulating entity (its not the government), so there is no reason why FINRA would censure a financial company.
How this does not violate any of Fidelity’s obligations to FIRNA literally blows my mind ... good people have been tarred and feathered over insignificant computer equipment and fitness reimbursements, but the firm can pretty much do whatever they please without any repercussions. If a Fidelity rep gave a $23 million donation to secure a piece of business that would pay them $50 million over time, you best bet they would be out on the streets. Why is the firm treated differently?