Unite with Fellow Investors
Choose the Best Attorney
Follow Case Progress
id: 824, Created by Stan Vick, Scout
Robinhood (HOOD) Best Execution Case
What do I get by joining?
- You will get case updates and receive a payout in case of success
- If you would like to actively participate, you will be connected to the attorney
- No, you do not pay anything out of your pocket neither to us nor to attorney
US-based Users who traded through Robinhood between September 1, 2016, and June 16, 2020, suspect the Company's receipt of payment for order flow was causing them to get unfavorable market prices on their orders.
- Robinhood, in its capacity as a broker, received payment for order flow from market makers to which it routed its client’s orders. Meanwhile, $HOOD was bound by a duty of best execution.
- Users believed that his market orders would be executed by Robinhood at the best available price, and he was unaware that the Company was receiving compensation directly related to their orders as payment for order flow.
- Users did not know that Robinhood’s receipt of payment for order flow was causing him to receive such unfavorable market prices on his orders.
- By receiving higher payments for order flow than its competitors, Robinhood negatively impacted, among other things, its clients’ order execution and chances for price improvement.
Users suspect Robinhood's agents and executives knew the 'commission-free' trading promise wasn't really free and that the fees imposed on trading firms resulted in poor execution for clients.
As a result, Users suspect that Robinhood misled them about "commission-free" trading and failed to provide the best execution, causing them material harm in the form of economic loss due to their orders going unfilled, underfilled, filled at a sub-optimal price, or filled in a manner that adversely affected the order’s performance post-execution.
Failure to Disclose,
Shock Event Date
16 June 2020
23 December 2020
Hon. Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers
16 September 2023
$HOOD User Case-related Update:
Massachusetts' highest appellate court upheld a unique fiduciary rule, aligning broker-dealers like $HOOD with the same standard as investment advisers, and ruling in favor of the state's securities regulator in a closely observed case initiated by Robinhood LLC.