It isn't They'll be sued and honestly, possibly collapse (if judges have any sense). But that's a small fish sacrificed to save the big fish. Very clever on their part, though obviously panic-driven since it was done so quickly.
Robinhood goes broke, but hedge funds and banks save billions they'd have otherwise lost if trading went as normal for the next 2 days.
The only combating that will occur is Robinhood will cease to exist and our "betters" will change the rules to prevent anything like this from happening again. They won't allow themselves to be threatened by the plebes.
At some point people are going to be left with literally nothing except violence as an outlet.
That scene from Phantom Menace where the chancellor says "I will make it legal" was prophetic. The Dems are literally trying to pass laws right now in the House to legalize the stolen election this fall.
You can't put literally anything into terms and conditions.
There's no way they included a portion that allows them to sell your stock, regardless of your knowledge or agreement of such. If they did, they can still be sued.
Doesn't matter. Not everything can be covered so easily. There are basic expectations from products and you cannot do just anything because you put it into your ToS. Back in Ebay's heyday, people lose civil suits where they try to sell pictures of an item when clearly the item was the expected product. "But the description says it's just a picture!!" Uh no... you cannot sell someone a picture of an iPhone for $700 and pretend you didn't mislead them.
I can put that I reserve the right to murder you without consequence in my ToC but if I did it, I can't point to that and say "Ah ha! He agreed to be murdered right here Mr. Judge."
Especially you cannot advertise yourself as a service that traditionally keeps your stocks safe, then have in your contract that they will do whatever they want with your stocks.
It's legal grey area, so a judge might allow it, but typically standard contracts must have expected provisions or else they must make the changes in expectations very apparent.
My guess is that RH will argue that it is a mutual fund, not a brokerage firm. And they will get crushed spectacularly by the courts. I have a feeling the courts may pierce the veil on this one based on the amount of publicity. People want metaphorical blood, and the political capital on the opposing side is weak. Expect to see the class action suit dig into the communications of Citadel. This one's either going to be a doozy or it's going to add kindling to the fire raging against the oligarchy.
The anon was probably trading with house money (i.e. borrowed) using a margin account. If that was the case, it's perfectly legal. If you're a big account they'd give you a courtesy call and opportunity to post more margin, but for small accounts they don't bother. The clause is buried under the agreement you sign when you open up a margin account.
Im just about positive you are right. Its a shame all the knee jerk reactions are getting all the upvotes. People who have never used Robinhood Gold but are 100% sure they have a conspiracy all figured out.
Because you faggots didn't object to "hate speech measures." "Hate speech is not free speech," you whined. So now they can put in a clause that if you say something they don't like they can seize your assets.
How is that even legal?
It isn't They'll be sued and honestly, possibly collapse (if judges have any sense). But that's a small fish sacrificed to save the big fish. Very clever on their part, though obviously panic-driven since it was done so quickly.
Robinhood goes broke, but hedge funds and banks save billions they'd have otherwise lost if trading went as normal for the next 2 days.
Basically this. They realized it was cheaper to nuke Robinhood than to allow unrestricted trading. Talk about collusion and market manipulation...
If there is nothing that is done to combat this, we might have a catalyst.
The only combating that will occur is Robinhood will cease to exist and our "betters" will change the rules to prevent anything like this from happening again. They won't allow themselves to be threatened by the plebes.
At some point people are going to be left with literally nothing except violence as an outlet.
That scene from Phantom Menace where the chancellor says "I will make it legal" was prophetic. The Dems are literally trying to pass laws right now in the House to legalize the stolen election this fall.
They don't even need Congress now to pass laws. Biden is ruling by executive fiat, like the illegitimate puppet he is.
This is correct. Rule of law died years ago and it's remains are mouldering away in the swamp.
did you read all the terms and conditions before "accepting"?
You can't put literally anything into terms and conditions.
There's no way they included a portion that allows them to sell your stock, regardless of your knowledge or agreement of such. If they did, they can still be sued.
probably covered by the "we reserve the right to modify these terms at any time" clause.
Doesn't matter. Not everything can be covered so easily. There are basic expectations from products and you cannot do just anything because you put it into your ToS. Back in Ebay's heyday, people lose civil suits where they try to sell pictures of an item when clearly the item was the expected product. "But the description says it's just a picture!!" Uh no... you cannot sell someone a picture of an iPhone for $700 and pretend you didn't mislead them.
The issue is judges ruling properly.
Some things are just illegal.
I can put that I reserve the right to murder you without consequence in my ToC but if I did it, I can't point to that and say "Ah ha! He agreed to be murdered right here Mr. Judge."
It's in most brokerages terms. They can close your positions if their risk management department see it as too much exposure in your portfolio.
Especially you cannot advertise yourself as a service that traditionally keeps your stocks safe, then have in your contract that they will do whatever they want with your stocks.
It's legal grey area, so a judge might allow it, but typically standard contracts must have expected provisions or else they must make the changes in expectations very apparent.
My guess is that RH will argue that it is a mutual fund, not a brokerage firm. And they will get crushed spectacularly by the courts. I have a feeling the courts may pierce the veil on this one based on the amount of publicity. People want metaphorical blood, and the political capital on the opposing side is weak. Expect to see the class action suit dig into the communications of Citadel. This one's either going to be a doozy or it's going to add kindling to the fire raging against the oligarchy.
Robinhood has done it before when users were buying on margin. It's a different story when users are playing with Robinhood's money.
If it's a margin account they all make you agree to it when you sign up.
The anon was probably trading with house money (i.e. borrowed) using a margin account. If that was the case, it's perfectly legal. If you're a big account they'd give you a courtesy call and opportunity to post more margin, but for small accounts they don't bother. The clause is buried under the agreement you sign when you open up a margin account.
Im just about positive you are right. Its a shame all the knee jerk reactions are getting all the upvotes. People who have never used Robinhood Gold but are 100% sure they have a conspiracy all figured out.
Because you faggots didn't object to "hate speech measures." "Hate speech is not free speech," you whined. So now they can put in a clause that if you say something they don't like they can seize your assets.
Pretty sure most people here oppose and opposed hate speech restrictions. "Hate speech is not free speech" is something the commies say, not us.
No, people give themselves away through their actions and "compromise."