Robinhood will pay a fine of $7.5 million to resolve allegations by
Massachusetts’ securities regulators, Reuters reported today (Thursday). This settlement involves claims by the authorities that
Robinhood encouraged inexperienced investors to undertake risky trades through its user engagement.
Massachusetts Secretary of State Bill Galvin filed
an administrative enforcement action in 2020, asserting that Robinhood engaged
in “gamification” tactics to stimulate user participation on its
platform.
According to a report by Bloomberg Law, the Supreme
Judicial Court of Massachusetts rejected Robinhood’s bid to block the
implementation of the state’s Fiduciary Duty Rule. This ruling, announced last
year, places significant fiduciary responsibilities on broker-dealers, aligning
them closely with the standards applied to investment advisers.
The court’s decision upheld Secretary Galvin’s
authority to enforce the Fiduciary Duty Rule, elevating broker-dealers’
fiduciary standards to match those of investment advisers. This ruling asserted that the Fiduciary Duty Rule is
crucial for protecting investors as outlined in the
Massachusetts Uniform Security Act.
Robinhood’s Legal Challenge
Robinhood’s legal challenge involves allegations of
violating this rule by encouraging risky trading practices. The decision by the
court addressed the growing complexity between broker-dealers and investment
advisors. The court’s ruling defined the obligations of financial professionals
to act in the best interests of investors.
Galvin’s enforcement action alleged that Robinhood failed to safeguard its users and their funds. The
Secretary asserted that the brokerage firm employed tactics akin to gamification,
targeting young and inexperienced traders.
Galvin contended that such practices breached the
state’s fiduciary duty rule, which was implemented in early 2020 to elevate the standards of investment advice provided by brokers. This ruling reinstates the validity of
the state Fiduciary Duty Rule, emphasizing its importance in regulating broker
conduct.
Despite a lower court ruling in Robinhood’s favor in
March 2022, the Suffolk County Superior Court in Boston, the Supreme Judicial
Court, overturned it. The trial court had argued that federal laws superseded
state regulations, and Judge Michael Ricciuti claimed Galvin overstepped
jurisdiction.
Robinhood will pay a fine of $7.5 million to resolve allegations by
Massachusetts’ securities regulators, Reuters reported today (Thursday). This settlement involves claims by the authorities that
Robinhood encouraged inexperienced investors to undertake risky trades through its user engagement.
Massachusetts Secretary of State Bill Galvin filed
an administrative enforcement action in 2020, asserting that Robinhood engaged
in “gamification” tactics to stimulate user participation on its
platform.
According to a report by Bloomberg Law, the Supreme
Judicial Court of Massachusetts rejected Robinhood’s bid to block the
implementation of the state’s Fiduciary Duty Rule. This ruling, announced last
year, places significant fiduciary responsibilities on broker-dealers, aligning
them closely with the standards applied to investment advisers.
The court’s decision upheld Secretary Galvin’s
authority to enforce the Fiduciary Duty Rule, elevating broker-dealers’
fiduciary standards to match those of investment advisers. This ruling asserted that the Fiduciary Duty Rule is
crucial for protecting investors as outlined in the
Massachusetts Uniform Security Act.
Robinhood’s Legal Challenge
Robinhood’s legal challenge involves allegations of
violating this rule by encouraging risky trading practices. The decision by the
court addressed the growing complexity between broker-dealers and investment
advisors. The court’s ruling defined the obligations of financial professionals
to act in the best interests of investors.
Galvin’s enforcement action alleged that Robinhood failed to safeguard its users and their funds. The
Secretary asserted that the brokerage firm employed tactics akin to gamification,
targeting young and inexperienced traders.
Galvin contended that such practices breached the
state’s fiduciary duty rule, which was implemented in early 2020 to elevate the standards of investment advice provided by brokers. This ruling reinstates the validity of
the state Fiduciary Duty Rule, emphasizing its importance in regulating broker
conduct.
Despite a lower court ruling in Robinhood’s favor in
March 2022, the Suffolk County Superior Court in Boston, the Supreme Judicial
Court, overturned it. The trial court had argued that federal laws superseded
state regulations, and Judge Michael Ricciuti claimed Galvin overstepped
jurisdiction.
