3 ms·
> That really only leaves two kinds of claims that might have legs: arguing that Robinhood violated securities laws, and arguing conspiracy on the part of hedge
by nextaccountic 6y ago
> That really only leaves two kinds of claims that might have legs: arguing that Robinhood violated securities laws, and arguing conspiracy on the part of hedge funds. The first part is difficult to win on because many of the complainants will simply lack the standing to do so (you have to have owned the stocks in question and bought/sold at a manipulated price to show standing, and since the complaints are generally on the theme of "we tried to buy but couldn't", they fail that)
Someone that owned GME shares could argue that by restricting buying but not selling shares, Robinhood was acting to lower the value of this asset. They might argue that in this situation the only fair thing to do is to restrict buying and selling altogether.
- gruez 6y ago>Someone that owned GME shares could argue that by restricting buying but not selling shares, Robinhood was acting to lower the value of this asset. They might argue that in this situation the only fair thing to do is to restrict buying and selling altogether. Whether that's fair is debatable. If you held GME shares and wanted to get out, but couldn't because robinhood restricted sells for no reason (ie. they couldn't execute buys because they couldn't put up the collateral, but they can still process sells because they don't need collateral for that), that can also be construed as unfair.
- nrmitchi 6y ago> restrict buying and selling altogether Robinhood is a brokerage, they are not the entire stock market. Robinhood has 0 ability to prevent people from selling GME in the market at large. It kind of feels like some people don't understand that Robinhood is only a gateway into a much larger system, and is fundamentally different than an "app/game" that controls the entire system on it's own servers.