Analysis: Robinhood protected from lawsuits by user agreement, Congress • Hacker News Board

Re: Analysis: Robinhood protected from lawsuits by user agreement, Congress

#11

Post by User23 » Sat, Jan 30, 2021, 6:28 PM UTC

kleton wrote: post #7

ericmay wrote: post #4

Robinhood won’t go out of business because of lawsuits, it’ll be an exodus of users. Even if they just weren’t prepared and everything they did was legitimately the right thing to do, that ship has sailed. I know people I didn’t even know had a Robinhood account ask me if I was shutting my account down too. This will be fascinating to watch. Can the repair the brand damage? I’m skeptical. Is there any similar scenari…

Each FINRA arbitration case would be expected to cost the company up to 10,000 in fees. If anywhere near the 100,000 users who left negative reviews on the Google Play store for the app file an arbitration and pay the filing fee, Robinhood will absolutely go bankrupt. If you are/were a Robinhood user: https://www.finra.org/arbitration-mediation/initiate-arbitra...

And under California law consumers cannot be forced to bear those costs.

Re: Analysis: Robinhood protected from lawsuits by user agreement, Congress

#12

Post by jedberg » Sat, Jan 30, 2021, 6:28 PM UTC

I'm not sure why this article talks about reddit at all. I'm not aware of anyone suing reddit or even considering it (unless the hedge funds plan to do so?).

It seems like they just wanted an excuse to write an article about Section 230, or had already written it when it was a big topic earlier in the month and wanted to use what they wrote elsewhere. :)

Re: Analysis: Robinhood protected from lawsuits by user agreement, Congress

#13

Post by User23 » Sat, Jan 30, 2021, 6:29 PM UTC

notyourwork wrote: post #10

kleton wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Each FINRA arbitration case would be expected to cost the company up to 10,000 in fees. If anywhere near the 100,000 users who left negative reviews on the Google Play store for the app file an arbitration and pay the filing fee, Robinhood will absolutely go bankrupt. If you are/were a Robinhood user: https://www.finra.org/arbitration-mediation/initiate-arbitra...

Submitting a negative review is a lot less effort than dealing with a court case. I think it’s unlikely a small percentage of 100,000 will pursue.

You’re talking about people who banded together to drive up share prices. They’ve already demonstrated an ability and willingness to coordinate.

Re: Analysis: Robinhood protected from lawsuits by user agreement, Congress

#14

Post by andrewflnr » Sat, Jan 30, 2021, 6:29 PM UTC

caseysoftware wrote: post #9

elliekelly wrote: post #2

I am cautiously optimistic that this issue (which seems to have drawn “outrage” from both sides of the political spectrum) will spur some change with respect to contracts of adhesion that force arbitration and prohibit class action suits. It’s nearly impossible to hold a corporation accountable for wide-spread anticonsumer behavior in any meaningful way so long as they can tuck those two paragraphs into a massive con…

On the arbitration front, check out the situation with IndieGoGo and now Patreon. A large number of people acting in concert can fight back against them without going to a class action lawsuit (which are banned anyway). A few years back, the MO for companies was to require arbitration, not participate, and then let it linger forever. California changed the law recently (2019?) where if the company doesn't respond, th…

> where if the company doesn't respond, they "lose"

Ah, that sounds like something that should go nation-wide.

Re: Analysis: Robinhood protected from lawsuits by user agreement, Congress

#15

Post by gruez » Sat, Jan 30, 2021, 6:29 PM UTC

mdorazio wrote: post #5

"It will be hard to prove users suffered as a result of Robinhood’s measures because GameStop and other stocks covered by the curbs fell sharply on Thursday after the restrictions were announced, said James Cox, a professor at Duke Law School." Wait, what? Can anyone legitimately make the claim that the massive drop in value that cut off the price rise at the knees and allowed the worst short positions to cover their…

Probably because those are theoretical losses. The previous paragraph is also relevant:

>However, Robinhood is not legally bound to carry out every trade and the lawsuits will not succeed without evidence the company restricted trading for an improper reason, such as to favor certain investors, according to several legal experts.

As mentioned in other threads, robinhood wasn't able to come up with the deposit needed for their customers trades. In that case I don't see how it's any different than a service outage causing you to lose money, but you don't have a SLA in place.

Re: Analysis: Robinhood protected from lawsuits by user agreement, Congress

#16

Post by adolph » Sat, Jan 30, 2021, 6:30 PM UTC

kleton wrote: post #7

ericmay wrote: post #4

Robinhood won’t go out of business because of lawsuits, it’ll be an exodus of users. Even if they just weren’t prepared and everything they did was legitimately the right thing to do, that ship has sailed. I know people I didn’t even know had a Robinhood account ask me if I was shutting my account down too. This will be fascinating to watch. Can the repair the brand damage? I’m skeptical. Is there any similar scenari…

Each FINRA arbitration case would be expected to cost the company up to 10,000 in fees. If anywhere near the 100,000 users who left negative reviews on the Google Play store for the app file an arbitration and pay the filing fee, Robinhood will absolutely go bankrupt. If you are/were a Robinhood user: https://www.finra.org/arbitration-mediation/initiate-arbitra...

Some previous (flagged) discussion about the Patreon mass arbitration story.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24016732

Re: Analysis: Robinhood protected from lawsuits by user agreement, Congress

#17

Post by [deleted] » Sat, Jan 30, 2021, 6:32 PM UTC

ericmay wrote: post #4

Robinhood won’t go out of business because of lawsuits, it’ll be an exodus of users. Even if they just weren’t prepared and everything they did was legitimately the right thing to do, that ship has sailed. I know people I didn’t even know had a Robinhood account ask me if I was shutting my account down too. This will be fascinating to watch. Can the repair the brand damage? I’m skeptical. Is there any similar scenari…

[deleted]

Re: Analysis: Robinhood protected from lawsuits by user agreement, Congress

#18

Post by lucasyvas » Sat, Jan 30, 2021, 6:32 PM UTC

Can anyone with Robinhood confirm what kind of agreement this is? Is it just a EULA? Obviously IANAL, but I cannot see how such agreements are legally binding if they don't even require a signature.

In a theoretical world where I had to sign a EULA, I'd never sign any of them and I imagine most people wouldn't either.

Re: Analysis: Robinhood protected from lawsuits by user agreement, Congress

#19

Post by andrewflnr » Sat, Jan 30, 2021, 6:32 PM UTC

Who is trying to sue Reddit for this? Bringing them up just sounds like building a case for repealing Section 230 of the DMCA, which would be a disaster but nevertheless seems to have bipartisan support.

Re: Analysis: Robinhood protected from lawsuits by user agreement, Congress

#20

Post by hutzlibu » Sat, Jan 30, 2021, 6:33 PM UTC

User23 wrote: post #13

notyourwork wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Submitting a negative review is a lot less effort than dealing with a court case. I think it’s unlikely a small percentage of 100,000 will pursue.

You’re talking about people who banded together to drive up share prices. They’ve already demonstrated an ability and willingness to coordinate.

But they are probably still not the majority of its users. Anyway, Robinhood is likely dead in the long run.